Islam: A Defective Civilization?

"Islam: A Defective Civilization?", by Robert Locke.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A nice synopsis of the dilemma we (the west) face in dealing with the Islamic world. Appreciate you posting the link. I can only thank God that I wasn't born into that religious culture, but it is possible that an Islamic democracy can exist and perhaps even thrive. Turkey is an example of the possibilities even though it is technically a secular government in an Islamic society. Personally I have to agree with Locke's observation.....nobody dreams of being like them or aspiring to someday live within their society.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The only problem is history

A very (ethnocentric and hateful) article. The big problem is history:

In the larger context of history, the fallacy of this statement shows through. The problem is not Islam itself, nor Islamic societies, but that God sets different priorities for Muslims.

If we want to talk about dysfunctional societies, let's take a look at Christianity. If we want to stay modern, as Mr. Locke seems to want to, all the better becaus American "Christians" (Bush included) are a perfect example of the dysfunctional state of Western society.

Justice, as interpreted by Muslims, is a huge factor. In Islam, Justice is very, very important. In Christianity, it is not so important because God will avenge the suffering. This is why Christians are told to "turn the other cheek" when someone strikes them. Yet you'll notice that most Americans would rather be Muslims in one sense: when offended, Muslims are told to strike back until aggression ceases. I find it odd that Westerners pick on the Islamic call to fight for justice, since most Americans prefer that method despite specific instructions otherwise in the Bible.

It's merely a matter of priorities. In the United States, if something is amiss, people will say, "It costs too much to worry about it."

In Islam, regardless of how one interprets justice, Justice does not play second fiddle to profit.

Remember that the one of the largest empires in world history was the Ottoman.

I love Locke's point 4: Muslim societies are backwards because nobody likes them.

I mean, come on ... this is the height of stupidity. It's not helpful, it's not insightful, it's (ethnocentric), it's hateful, and it is so factually narrow as to constitute a lie in and of itself.

However, I will not exonerate Islam completely. Religious societies are indeed problematic in fairly unique ways. However, Islam is 600 years younger than Chrisitanity in terms of social development; they'll catch up if you allow them. After all, it takes a long time to strike such a balance as we have in the United States, where God is so important to so many people and yet utterly and completely devoid of any social contribution.

Locke's ethnocentric chest-beating may do him some good, but he's the only one. I hope he feels better after writing that article. After all, it's not often that one gets to pretend to be self-righteous while contributing to the problem at hand. Now all Locke needs to do is calm down enough to write an article entitled, "Why I hate you all!"

Can't all be jealousy, can it?

:m:,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Edit: Amended, on recognition of certain arguments, the word "racist". Amendments are parenthetically noted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Beyond the wonderfull points Tiassa is making , there is something I think much more relevant going on , and that is the relation between the complainer and the people whe complains about .

But first :

when offended, Muslims are told to strike back until aggression ceases.

You see I dont agree with the essence on how interperted . It should be considered that this only has any logics in it if the purpose is MAKING aggression cease . However this hardly is indeed the purpose , sure maybe in peoples minds but not in their actions . If you strike back in order for the other not to strike you anymore , I can agree , but if you strike merely because another has striken you , this is nothing other than retalliation , which is completely reactionary and not constructive .


despite specific instructions otherwise in the Bible.


I say when understanding those instructions in that sense , they all are totally contradcitory . For instance , didnt Jesus bring the sword ? And does God ask you to act violent on specific notes ?

However, Islam is 600 years younger than Chrisitanity in terms of social development;

I have serious problems with this way of reasoning , first of all we dont know how things were exactly at the beginning , my personal opinion is tended to go over a superior understanding of philosophy compared to today . Remeber that the Qu'ran is actually somewhat the invention of Arabic as a seriously and extensive written language , it can hardly be compared with todays Arabic ...... anyways I think things decreased instead of increased , thats why I dont believe this "evolution" you propose similar to Christianity .

But not only the origin I consider important , but the especially political roads that each religion has taken , and with Islam especially in the last 100 years ....... its totally incomparable that way .

Which brings me to the article itself :

Somehow he didnt care to give that much of importance to
The alternative, of course, is that the trouble Islam appears to cause is the product of pure politics and not of religion per se

I will be the last to defend Islam as it is presented today in a theological discussion , but thats not what this article is about and thats why this entire thread belongs in politics instead of religion , but what the hell .........

He confronts us with these facts :

1. Politics: Few Muslim nations are real democracies; in the Arab heartland, the count is zero. An exceptionally high proportion of the Muslim nations, the highest proportion of any major bloc of countries, are politically pathological, having failed to achieve internal stability that rests on anything other than brute force. They are also prone to external aggression, directly or by proxy, much of it serving no discernable national interest.[/

So nice that he cares so little for explaining political results through political reasons . How nicely that those reasons are the cause not only by the game of western colonization , but the game of "cold war" as well . The failure is a failure fabricated and implementated by the West , and later as a contra-product for the USSR .

2. Economics: The Muslim world is impoverished and backward economically if one ignores oil, a windfall that it did not itself create. Worse still, even the oil states can’t produce their own oil but rely on foreign expertise and labor.

How beautifull , exact the same reason as the previous one , something he seems to deny completely . This way of thinking is so disgusting , its like the slavemaster kicking his slave because he cant read , while his ancestors are the ones why the slavedriver isnt stuck in a cave like his grand-papa .

3. Society: Most Muslim societies are backward in terms of basic social indicators like levels of education and the status of women. Civil society is stunted. Corruption is rife. Alienation is widespread.

Indeed regimes who have the purpose of corruption will be corrupt , and why are they corrupt ? Indeed basic social indicators are backward , and why was this again ? Because of the dictatorial all-powerfull regimes of WESTERN-use?

4. Culture: The culture of the Muslim world is not admired by outsiders, either in its high or popular versions. Foreign students do not flock to its universities. Its ideals do not resonate for others. No-one dreams of being like them.

Tiassa has said more than enough for this one , this is just too stupid .

conflict Muslims have with Hindu India and with black Africans ?

Perhaps he means Kashmir , where Brittain was so nice to give a land where Muslims live to Hindu authority ? No colonization isnt to blaim for anything , not for Arabia , not for India and Pakistan , not for South America's hardly still existant natives in America and not for todays Mestizo's and Mulatto's , not for slavery and in no way for Africa ....... how DARES this man mention blacks in Africa from a Western perspective ?

This was what the Shah of Iran was trying to do when so rudely interrupted by the Ayatollah Khomeini

OMG this man's actually defending the Shah .......

They should deport this man's ass to Iran

 

How in the hell do you construe that article as being racist? What, because it was written from the perspective of a westerner?

You put nothing of substance to prop up your contention regarding Locke's comment: ": Muslim societies are backwards because nobody likes them." Nobody does like them. People don't want to live there if given a choice or opportunity to leave for Europe or N. America.

Your remark was:

What's racist about the facts? Do you see hordes of people trying immigrate to even more or less civilized Islamic countries like Turkey or Saudi Arabia- let alone some of the more primitive ones like Yemen or Algeria? Of course not.

Is that why Bush just pledge billions to fight AIDS in Africa? Sheesh, speaking of dysfunctional outlooks, yours is based solely on political ideologies.

 

Bridge :
Do you see hordes of people trying immigrate to even more or less civilized Islamic countries like Turkey or Saudi Arabia- let alone some of the more primitive ones like Yemen or Algeria? Of course not.

Technically it is not racist , it doesnt really matter anyways .
What does matter is that it is a remark that shows Locke's distorted intelligence .

What it is as well , is that he holds wealth superior for the distorded conclusion he is trying to prove : Our society is better then theirs . Since ours and there's can be racially divided (as well as religiously as culturally etc) , he may deny his racial intention , but obviously there IS a racial relevance .

Personally I have to agree with Locke's observation.....nobody dreams of being like them or aspiring to someday live within their society.

so whats your point with this then ? You dont argue the fact that indeed there is little aspiration for ANYBODY (meaning Western ofcourse because Western civilaztion may be shit in numbers or history it has power and material wealth) to live their live or live within their society's .

So whats your deal , you acknowledge these facts as factual , so do I . Please imply your point as well .

You're probably not even conscious of it but measuring opinions only by Western when there's 5/6 peoples on this globe who aint Western means you dont hold values of equality . If you think you're vision is more of value than anybody elses' because of your wealth then mine's more superior then yours because Im bloody rich fat chance you have more $ than me , and I say Gulag for you .

But then the real thing thats disgusting here , your wealth is STOLEN from the very same peoples you're degrading , and thats not the worst thing even . The worst thing is that the regimes who brutally rape countries are BECAUSE of people like Locke where they are today , and you even call Saudi Arabia civilized ? Why because they GIVE YOU OIL ? They have a DISGUSTING Wahhabi secterian Islamic interpertation (wasnt islam your problem?) , and they brutalize their peoples 35% of their inhabitants is damn foreign there's where everything goes . I bet Kuweit and UAE and Qatar are all civilized as well ?

Why is Yemen poor ? Algeria ? Thank you France . Thank you very much .













Is that why Bush just pledge billions to fight AIDS in Africa?

This is a joke right ?

 

How? Well ... it's RACIST ... duh ...

The disregard the author shows history in general is so unprofessional that I'm left to conclude that it is deliberate or else the result of stupidity. The problem there is that I try not to presume people outright stupid, though I admit the degree of racism apparent in the article verges on the ridiculous.

Is it the Muslims that people wish to avoid, or the grinding poverty being enforced by Western interests? Strangely, for all the bad things I hear about Muslims, when I meet a Muslim, that person is generally easier to get along with than most Christians or atheists I meet. In the meantime, what can I put up for substance? Locke needs to demonstrate that assertion with something a little less than modern bigotry.

Well, why don't you read the article. It relies on the notion that since nobody likes the Muslim societies, there must be something wrong with Muslims. Does that mean that when nobody liked blacks in this country, it was the Niggers' faults? That so many Muslims are mad at Israel? Is that somehow the fault of the Jews?

People emigrate for money.

Think about this:

- I am leaving for America. I hope to earn enough to send for you all so that my family may live in peace and prosperity.

or ...

- I am leaving for America. I hope to get rich, get a coke habit, beat my son, and watch my daughter turn into a foulmouthed slut.

If there was more money in Algeria, people would be going there.

In the meantime, I doubt a "defective" culture could have maintained and even developed the world body of astronomical knowledge while the European Christians were busy killing things in God's name. I doubt a "defective" culture could raise such empires as Muslims have.

It's a tough call for the AIDS money. I had been ignoring an editorial about "AIDS Money for AIDS Patients, not US Corporations", but now that you've given me a reason to go read it, I can't find it.

I just find it absolutely offensive that you would reach to Bush's latest PR gamble to counteract the notion of a long-standing trend in American behavior. Why belittle the issues?

I mean, my parents, for instance, had twisted priorities. Should I take five minutes one day when I was fourteen that I got along with my father and say, "See? We never had any problems."

If our American priorities were straight, a larger chunk of money would have gone to the global HIV fight years ago. We can't blame Dubya for Reagan, Poppy, or Bill's failures to address the AIDS crisis, but why would I presume a dubiously-phrased but well-intentioned pledge of money to fight AIDS indicates a full-scale reversal of a behavioral trend that finally pissed someone off enough to blow up the World Trade Center?

Oh, wait ... that's right ... the racist article by Mr. Locke had no regard for history; why should you?

My bad. I should have thought about that first ....

:m:,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Bridge

I think I've found a better way to put it:

- If I start with the presumption that the difficulties in Muslim nations must necessarily have something to do with the wrongness of Islam, then yes the article makes perfect sense.

But that's all there is to it. There's no real evidence that Locke has anything else on his mind than condemning Islam, and that's just rabidly ethnocentric.

Remember, please, that our evangelical born-again Christian President of the United States would rather be Muslim on one count: when struck, a Christian is told to turn the other cheek. When struck, an Muslim is told to strike back until aggression ceases.

So while the rigidity of Islamic cultures may seem backwards, at least, I'm not sure I like the implication that dishonesty as a way of life (e.g. the West) is forward, proper, or otherwise to be aspired to.

:m:,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well America has alot of problems but pointing out a few problems somewhere else doesn't make someone a racist!
The author is only condemning a particular interpretation
of islam. If I say Islam is false does that make me ethnocentric? No, because I can give evidence from the Qur'an and Muhammad's life which I find contradict a true prophet of God. I can back up this by alot of evidence of course. However the author's intent is not to say that Islam was false but to explain that a medieval legal system, one interpretation of Islam, does not make sense today. In the puritanical medieval islam law any convert into another religion is killed. Unintentionally burning the Qur'an and you will be lynched or burned alive. Inherants perform mercy killings etc.

 

Laff-a-minute?

I would be interested in reading more of this assessment. Upon what do you base it?

My problem with the article is that it isolates the immediate from the rest of history and treats the issues as if they exist in a vacuum.

Like I noted, and you quoted: If I start with the presumption that the difficulties in Muslim nations must necessarily have something to do with the wrongness of Islam, then yes the article makes perfect sense.

Such a presumption would be irresponsible of me to make.

The author seeks to establish that the problems in Muslim-populated countries is Islam itself. The article does not make sense in terms of supporting the assertion, but it does make sense if one decides in advance that the assertion is unassailable and goes forward from there. The article is a myopic hallelujah chorus at best.

I fell over laughing at this paragraph:

And this, absolutely precious ...

:m:,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes not even in the Qur'an.

His quote about Turkey not following Islamic law. You can say for example that Islam is a defective civilization but not a defective religion. Imagine if we take Jesus too literally and don't judge anyone and try to base a goverment system out of it. Total failure. So even Christianity cannot be used for a complete goverment.

 

Imagine that? I'm rambling again ....

And? Point being?

Well, I should mention, though you may have noticed elsewhere, that my sentiments lie with those who would say that about pretty much any major religion. I mean, the Buddhists are great, but they're not leading the industrialized world. The industrialists are pretty cool, but they're snuffing the human spark.

But there's also a lack of vision there, in that if Islam is stalling as a society, something which might have some influence is the idea that one must continue to strive for propriety and goodness. It is fair enough to say that Islamic societies are fundamentally questionable since Islam is designed to seek the unattainable (save for the grace of the One God); it seems to me that an Islamic society is nonetheless based on imperfect ideas, and that can be said about any society.

What's odd is that, while I do agree entirely that Christianity is subject to the same difficulties I noted about "any society", I'm left to accuse you of a minor lack of vision, but that's still too harsh because it's something that just about everybody overlooks, Muslims included.

Let's assume that we take Jesus "too seriously"; part of it is that I could, in this context, disagree with "too seriously". But I can recognize the "certain degree" that you're addressing.

So if we take Jesus' words to a "certain degree", one of the things that seems implicit is that in theory there will be nothing to judge. This is a sticky issue, as humans are human, and one size never fits all. At that point we're looking at a utopia, which presumes that such difficulties as you note are resolved. In accepting the utopia, however, one must address how those difficulties are resolved. That, of course, is a digression best left for other days. Of course, the same things can be said about any utopia.

Something that just struck me is that when people criticize Islamic manifestation in society--e.g. sharia government, &c--they're criticizing the interpretation. I just have a hard time applying that to the whole of Islam. If we stop to think about the number of people and number of minutes devoted to the acts and ideas which lend to the difficulties of Muslim societies ... well, why, exactly are they worried about these things? Is there a history of exploitation by the West that lends to the present poverty of a nation? Is there a current trend of oppression which limits the number of viable, functional ideologies? Why are X minds devoting Y minutes to Z topics? What can be done to change that?

History tells us that Islam is capable of great heights. What happened? It is easy enough to say the medieval minds of sharia governments and so forth, but how did they come to win ideological approval? Only a small part of that answer is that the US helped them to power, so that point is officially beside the point. But the West has been beating back the Muslim world for centuries now. Eventually that has its effect, not just in stirring anger directly, but also in the socioeconomic result and the frustrations that brings.

For instance: Why did the Iranian people raise Ayatollah Ruollah Khomeni to power? (I so recommend Ryszard Kapuscinski's Shah of Shahs in that context; it hardly explains the situation, but you can gain some insight into what was frustrating people in Iran at the time. It's a really good book.)

Okay, my last idea just went off into the haze ... I'll stop now ....

:m:,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Re: The only problem is history

Or maybe this occurs because predominantly Christian nations aren't theocracies and therefore the domestic and foreign policy don't necessarily reflect - or even attempt to reflect - Christian values.

I love Locke's fourth point as well, which actually reads:

"4. Culture: The culture of the Muslim world is not admired by outsiders, either in its high or popular versions. Foreign students do not flock to its universities. Its ideals do not resonate for others. No-one dreams of being like them."

Islamic societies aren't backwards because nobody likes them.

Many people dislike Islamic societies because they are backwards.

It is helpful and insightful with regard to the study of culture and its effects on the society in which the culture exists. Immigration trends make this even more important.

It's not racist, since Islam is a religion rather than a race.

It's not hateful, since facts are values and emotion-neutral things.

It's not even "factually narrow". Where in the world do you see mass numbers of non-Muslims working to make their society mirror Islamic nations? Do non-Muslim women in Western nations tend to wear burkas? Do the men wear turbans? How many non-Muslims to you know fast between dawn and dusk for Ramadan and make a pilgrimage to Mecca?

I will not exonerate your excuse completely. There are also religions newer than Islam that don't attempt to conquer lands inhabited by those who practice other religions. It was the Muslims who invaded Spain and France, not Scientologists and Latter Day Saints.

Pointing out politically incorrect facts doesn't contribute to the problem at hand unless the problem at hand is pointing out politically incorrect facts.

 

A cheerleader's "facts of life"?

Hmm ... maybe it occurs because Christian nations pay mere lip service to principles, much as they do to God.

- Censorship in the 1980s
- "Clothing optional" zones

In the 1980s, the PMRC brought the Christian conscience all the way to Congress, when Senator Gore asked Dee Snider of Twisted Sister about the SMF fan club. Snider responded that "SMF" stood for "Sick Mother Fuckers" or "Sick Mother Fucking fans of Twisted Sister". Gore shot back, "Is that a Christian youth group?"

What sensibilities were being violated? Who was complaining? It was always the Christians. Even in the 1990s, Marilyn Manson has seen its shows cancelled by local authorities for Christian-values concerns.

And what of legislation written in various localities throughout the United States granting permission to people to walk down the street in various states of undress? In the United States, the presumption that people must wear clothes is inherently Judeo-Christian.

I agree that our foreign policy doesn't reflect Christian values, but take it up with our born-again evangelical Christian executive who says that God is on our side.

If I disregard history entirely, yes I can see how you might come to think that.

It's racist. Islam is part of the Abramic tradition, and Americans don't give Muslims the same respect as they do Jews, though in the U.S. Jews are often considered to be "white".

Facts are not facts when they are manipulated and presented incompletely.

If they did that, they would be Muslims ....

In the meantime, problems in Muslim nations are related to economy and education, two things which took major hits as the Ottoman empire came apart and Muslims found themselves under the thumb of greedy European and eventually American Christians who played an unconscionable game of "What's mine is mine" across the face of the globe.

If we eliminate history from consideration entirely, and eliminate economy and finance entirely, then of course we're left with Islam being the only other problem. But we cannot cast aside history, economy, and other factors so casually as the article author has. It is irresponsible to do so and assert any sense of a conclusion, which leads me wondering why the author does so. Given the aim to hurt Islam, I conclude that the author suffers a particularly overt case of ethnocentrism.

So yes, it is a factually narrow article.

Consider this: Joe shot Jim.

That's a fact. Let's go get Joe and haul him to trial.

What happens though if we don't look so narrowly at the facts? Joe shot Jim because Jim assaulted Joe's daughter.

Now we want to deal with Jim.

But Jim did not assault Joe's daughter as thought; Joe's daughter was trying to deliberately tempt Jim.

So when the police, the DA's, and the psychs are all done, we're left with a factual situation: Joe came home, walked in, found Jim on top of Jill, and figured that Jim was assaulting her. So he shot Jim without asking any questions, despite the fact that Jill was of consenting age and had given consent.

And yet all this author is telling me is the narrow version: Joe shot Jim.

Um ... when you have to invoke Scientology (The Church of Scientology, Incorporated - a for-profit enterprise) and the Latter Day Saints (who have a plethora of internal problems which, of late, include factual undermining of the sacred text by a scholar within the organization) to justify one's distaste for Islam, well ... thank you for the chuckle.

Limiting the facts in order to present a lie as truth helps nobody ever, under any circumstances.

In the meantime, Galt, you're welcome to show how Islam wrecks those countries. While I disagree with turbans and burkas, I see no law of nature which precludes such conditions from existing as part of a prosperous society.

For the time being, it is inadequate to simply state that on the one hand are difficulties in Muslim societies, while on the other there is something--Islam--which one does not understand, and that the other must necessarily cause the one.

Take the World Trade Center towers for example. Now, you and I and anyone in their right mind will note that the towers collapsed because jets struck them and exploded. Functionally speaking, this is more than simply reasonable. It seems airtight.

However, there exists the old claim that the towers were designed to withstand just such an event, which leads us to wonder what other factors contributed to their falling down. We can fairly say that the jets knocked down the towers, but what is that other factor that made the buildings collapse the way they allegedly shouldn't have? It doesn't exonerate the terrorists, but are you going to believe the next person who says the building is designed to withstand _____ (fill in the blank with whatever disaster you like)?

Depending on one's purpose, the narrower expression (the jets knocked down the towers) can be more than sufficient. However, if you're the guy designing the next building, or if you're in your office when a 757 smashes into it ... well, I think the idea of whether or not the building can withstand such an event without collapsing becomes quite relevant.

In other words, watching something happen, it is good enough to say, "This is what happened." But that explanation may not suffice functionally for those who would like to do something about what has happened.

As long as Locke chooses to sit on the sidelines and cheer one team while booing for another, his "facts" are good enough for that purpose. If he expects to change anything for the better, though, he's way off course and treading a very narrow track. Maybe I should take up a collection so we can mail Mr. Locke some pom-poms.

:m:,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Re: A cheerleader's "facts of life"?

You don't seem to understand the point. A secular nation shouldn't and wouldn't implement religious principles into law. Granted, not all Christians believe in a secular government, but most do or else all of North America and almost all of Europe would be run by Christian theocracies.

What's your point? Militant homosexuals and their supporters protested Dr. Laura's prospective television show, but America was not transformed into a Soviet or Chinese style atheist dictatorship.

Can you walk naked through the streets of Saudi Arabia or the People's Republic of China? Unlikely. The idea of expecting people to be clothed in public is not specific to any one religion.

You don't have to disregard history at all, much less entirely. In the article Locke specifically mentions that Islamic societies of 1000 years ago or so were more enlightened than their Christian neighbors simply due to Islamic dogma, but since dogma is resistant to change the societies found it difficult to progress beyond that stage.

Nowhere in the article did he say that predominantly Christian nations were better than predominantly Muslim nations because Christianity is a better religion or results in a better culture per se. The argument was the predominantly Christian nations were better because Christians in general have been able to separate religion from government and predominantly Muslim nations haven't, as well as the fact that nutty Christians have far less influence in the average Western nation than nutty Muslims do in the average Islamic nation.

How "factually narrow" of you to assume that a difference in attitudes towards Muslims and Jews has anything to do with perceived racial or ethnic identity.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Islamic countries, the least of which having nothing to do with race. Almost all are lacking in respect for basic individual rights. Many sponsor terrorism. A few even allow the enslavement of non-Muslims.

What was manipulated or presented in completely?

Which proves what Locke said about Islamic culture not being admired by outsiders.

A Saudi is probably more likely to want his or her nation to be like America than an American is to want his or her nation to be like Saudi Arabia.

The economies of Muslim nations tend to suck because they are usually based on one thing: oil.

The crappy education system is at least in part due to culture. It wasn't Western "exploitation" that caused the Taliban to prohibit girls from attending schools, was it?

What historical facts has he ignored? In fact, he specifically points out the tendency of fanatical Muslims to ignore historical record, such as their anger over the Crusades when in fact the Crusades likely wouldn't have happened had Muslims not invaded and conquered Christian lands.

The faults of Islam as a system of government are entirely based on Islam and have nothing to do with economics or even history. The Koran is as old as Islam and existed long before the West "exploited" the Middle East and even before the Middle East "exploited" the West. Therefore the problems associated with using the Koran as the rulebook for government has nothing to do with anything other than the Koran itself.

I don't think the aim was to hurt Islam, but to discredit it as a form of government and its fanatical elements as a desireable culture - and rightly so.

All that is meaningless. While you could make a good case that some Western nations have been unfair to some Muslim nations, that can hardly be blamed for the problems caused by the theocratic elements in Muslim nations. Nations run by fanatical Muslims don't suck because Joe shot Jim. They suck because fanatical Islam is a lousy basis for a society - as is any fanatical religion, in my opinion.

And when you have to ignore the fact that Islam's relative "youth" when compared to Christianity doesn't explain away its problems...well...thank you for the chuckle.

If you read the article, you will notice that his criticism of Islam societies is not really based on a lack of prosperity but a lack of civility and individual rights. He doesn't say that Muslim countries suck because the people wear burkas. Essentially, the point is that Muslim countries suck due to the oppression that is inherent to forcing a religious views on the peoples of a nation, as well as the fanatical Muslims' obsession with selective elements of history (such as the Crusade) which causes hatred towards those perceived to be responsible for those selective elements.

So why does basically secular Turkey suck far less than Syria, Saudi Arabia or Taliban-run Afghanistan? Both are predominantly Muslim, after all. The difference is that while all nations are predominantly Muslim, the best and most free nation of the bunch is the one that isn't run or heavily influenced by fanatical Muslims.

 

So, we're Americans. Does that mean we should stop trying?

I do understand the point. I'm telling you the "theocracy" is sublimated.

That the "theocracy" is sublimated.

No, but it's pretty common in the third world, the poor sinners ....

True, although I do think of an Iranian immigrant to New York who was busted in the early 1990s after he took (decent and artful) photos of his nude daughter. I would ask you to trust me that the extenuating circumstances showed that never was the girl's health, safety, or overall condition in question, and never was her willingness to be photographed (she suggested, he didn't ask), and that his arrest was about a knee-jerk reaction to a man seeing his daughter naked and taking a picture. The arrest and resulting process is more likely to damage the girl than the photographs.

And Americans, free of the fetters of such "awful" religions as Islam (however that works out), should generally be smarter than the people we tend to look down upon. Woo-hoo. By your comparison, we're equivalent to the Saudis.

But follow sexuality through American history; you'll find Christianity at the heart of it.

Which point overlooks that Christianity overcame stiff dogmatic resistance to change. What did it? Sin. Money, leisure, luxury. If Americans were, by and large, as poor as Iranians or some-such, religion would be even more apparent than it is. Sure, there would be less of a televangelism industry, but the people wouldn't need to pay someone to scare them. Under such conditions, they can scare themselves easily enough.

Nonetheless, the author conveniently overlooks a vital part of his comparison to Christian history.

In greed and selfishness we found our reasons to overcome theocratic fetters. But we've merely traded one tyranny for another. The author can have his way. Islam is a defective culture, religion, and general idea. But I don't see how that sets Islam apart from anything else.

Of course, I can if I throw out the whole of human history and accept that the narrow consideration of facts offered by the author constitutes the whole of reality.

I'm running out of better excuses to make for people.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike anybody.

In the meantime, what are the reasons for those reasons?

Why don't we take Iran as an example. Has it ever occurred to you to ask why the Iranians raised Khomeni to power? Is it just because they're Muslims and defective? Or might it possibly have something to do with a tyrannical Shah who built the world's third-strongest army and a legendary secret police force known for its savagery, who oppressed his people and attempted to forcibly "Westernize" their appearance and mores while playing a game of circle-jerk with the US and UK as those states wrangled with the Soviet Union for better petrol prices? (It seems I mentioned this argument briefly earlier. Sorry to repeat, but this is the slightly-filled-in version.)

History itself is generally tragic, though we're taught to recognize the "triumph" of the human endeavor.

Would it actually do any good for me to restate that?

It's easier if you just start at the top and read some of the objections to the article going on throughout. You'll notice, for instance, that Jihad and I disagree on a couple of points, but a common theme between us is the myopia of Locke's consideration of history. I'll try to address the point more specifically based on a couple of your other points of argument.

Seems to be a useless point.

I think about the woman who just lost a court case to wear her veil in her driver's license picture. Yeah ... she probably looks forward to the summer when she can throw on the g-string, oil up, and hit the beach.

Everybody seems to like money. Everybody seems to like good medical technology. Not everyone wants to suffer the same social ills brought on by American progress. It must be a hard decision in the dualistic sense: on the one hand is a culture where soldiers may show up and rape your daughter. On the other is a culture where your daughter is free to go out, score some booze, and gang-bang the varsity football team. The "American Way" is profitable in a monetary sense, but for a people who are not under the gun every day, we're rushing to the grave.

If, for instance, the United States didn't seem so eternally offensive, flippant, and even hateful, more people would want to be like us and less people would want to blow us up.

Yep. And how many Europeans went after that oil? The British in Iraq? The Americans in Saudi Arabia? The British, Americans, and Soviets all vying for Iran?

Even if we move past the oil generalization, there's no pretending that the less-developed and undeveloped world weren't playgrounds for cruel Cold War ambitions.

When a tyranny takes power, it exscinds its opposition; typically this includes artists, intellectuals, and clerics: the very people who can organize and express an opposition. In the case of the Cold War, a power vacuum exists where Soviet influence formerly existed. That vacuum is being filled by tyrannical extremists. And in some cases--e.g. Afghanistan--the United States hired the extremists.

Nope. The U.S. only raised them to power. That was our contribution.

 

Though I admit I can't speak much here about Islam, I've only read the concise guide, I don't have complete insight, I am however learning Arabic and in doing so, I've studied the history of Islamic nations. I must say that Islam seemed to have a great head start a thousand years ago, but seems to have lost that now. It's a shame. Though I can never support a theistic religion on principle alone, I still think that Islam is better than Christianity, merely because all the Muslims I know actually act like Muslims, and all the "Christians" I know are pathetic representatives of God.

 

Congratulations Tiassa, you've written some excellent filibusters as replies but you avoided directly answering the question of HOW Locke's commentary could be considered racist.

Your first try:

Perhaps I'm stupid too but in either case you never cited anything Locke said even though you make it seem so unequivocal.

Your second try after Galt blew shotgun sized holes through the rest of your argument:


Galt: >>"It's not racist, since Islam is a religion rather than a race"<<

Tiassa:

Nice try. Let me guess, you never heard of Sammy Davis Jr. right?
Technically speaking Jews are African-Americans. Technically, if evolution is correct, we all are. But I'd still like to see your reasoning for calling Locke's remark racist. Care to try once more?

 

The short form

Thankfully, your literacy is not my responsibility.

Very simply, Locke has no intention of increasing understanding, but rather aims to condemn a culture he obviously does not understand. It reeks of ethnocentrism, it bleeds ethnocentrism.

Yes, unfortunately it is because you are too stupid. I was trying not to say anything about that, but since you bring it up ....

But I'm happy to do it the long way.

Anti-semitism is anti-semitism. Locke is irrational in his selective disregard for history; one must wonder why. While you seem to want examples of what Locke said, much of the problem is in what Locke didn't say. But like I said, we can do it the long way.

You're almost funny. Do I have to get out a dictionary and cite the definition of the word often, or did you ignore it just to make a silly point?

Do you think Sammy Davis Jr. got more crap in his day for being Jewish or for being black?

Do you know why Germans weren't thrown in internment camps in the United States as the Japanese were? Because they were white.

A pale-skinned Jew is less likely to be discriminated against in terms of raw numbers than a dark-skinned anyone in the United States.

In the meantime, since you want the long post, I'll put together a long post for you. But if you (A) would be so kind, and (B) are actually capable, I would ask you to consider the following points in total:

- Locke's suggestions about Islam are inherently condemning. This is not problematic in any sense. Every culture has its share of problems, some more severe than others.
- Locke maintains a very immediate view of the situation. Point 4, about Culture, which I ridiculed, for instance, treats its own assertion matter-of-factly. To counterpoint: It is not blacks in the 1980s that I was afraid of, but rather the violence taking place in unusual concentrations in certain areas heavily populated by blacks. It is not Islam itself that bothers me about these countries; under different economic situations, people will view their religion differently. It is this dynamic nature that Locke seems to intentionally overlook entirely. In fact, he asserts directly against it.
- As Locke moves into his comparison between Islam and Christianity, he presumes the comparisons to be natural, as if the problems of Islamic cultures somehow reduce the problems of post-Christian cultures. The comparison is not inherent. The relationship between them does not necessarily allow a comparison of the ideas as independent concepts. Locke does not acknowledge the disparities inflicted by the course of history in any functional sense. The "successful" post-Christian West has made a point of exploiting a declining socio-economic phenomenon.
- This point is further illustrated when Locke invokes the Renaissance. The first golden age of Islam was pretty impressive. The "Islamic Renaissance", when it takes place amid a more secure economic perspective, will be phenomenal. If the historical difference of the Renaissance is so key, why does Locke gloss over it? I would think the key historical difference would warrant more detailed examination. I would love to see the "strangled" Islamic Renaissance disseminated for popular understanding, even if a footnote referring to someone else's article or monograph was the best he could do. But for a key historical difference, apparently Locke couldn't even provide that.
- Locke's closing statement smacks of presumption. It is demonstrable that Western political agendas have exploited Islamic nations. If there is every reason to wish for an Islamic Reformation analogous to the Christian, why on earth is the West working so hard to prevent it?
- The whole of Locke's failure comes in the inherently condemning thesis, that Islam is a defective culture, and his isolation of that idea from the fact that every culture is defective to a certain degree. As a result, it bodes ill for the author should we consider why he strives to a superficial stacking of the deck, a shallow picking through history, in order to support an inherently condemning thesis alleged of another people. Ethnocentrism is ethnocentrism, and as any comparison to a black Jew fails on the grounds that Locke pays no mind whatsoever to Muslims in other countries as a comparative point: when the people have the luxury of considering the lessons that Muslims in other lands can teach them about socialization, that influence will change the human relationship to the idea of Islam. It's an inherent fact of human existence, and I'm quite sure that Muslims are humans too. Locke considers this at no point in his article. It is too inconvenient to an inherently condemning thesis to remember that the condemned are just as human as the accuser.

Admittedly, the end result would probably be an article that is four times as long, but if Locke is trying to tell us something that important ... well, isn't it worth it to give the long form?

Why hold back the Islamic Renaissance? Because it would somehow reduce a Western standard of living that is, comparatively excessive?

Don't get me wrong: I love being part of the industrialized first world. But at least two billion people on this planet don't have access to potable water. Am I to remember and honor those who have sacrificed to deliver unto me the freedoms I enjoy? And why should I not bear in mind those who have been sacrificed in order that I should enjoy the luxuries that I do? Yes, I enjoy my luxury. I don't want to give it up. But I won't forget for a minute that somewhere in the world, someone's child is starving so that I can wear this cheap blue shirt while I sit in front of my iMac and spend hours waxing philosophical about human nature. I don't want to give it up, but I don't like that anyone is starving. The trick is how to have both. And I'm discouraged that more people aren't willing to do at least that for themselves. Of course, other people have the right to find comfort in fuel-inefficient vehicles that demand a politically-charged petrol dependency. While only a few of those people would pretend that the Iraqi reconstruction is going well, they have the perfect right to believe that it was all worth it if gas prices come down. And that's the problem: convincing people that a little effort will bring them greater comfort. Heaven forbid we Americans should sacrifice some of our excess.

And before you go get into a self-righteous tizzy, the long form is still to come.

:m:,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Interesting Article

First and foremost, I liked the article but the author did show
some of his biases. He put alot of thought in certain areas (which
implies that he's not stupid) and it's quite possible that he
got 'too into' the article and just lost objectivity at certain points
(thus, the ethnocentric tone some folks have noted).


Jihad_AlifLamLamHah Quotes:

I don't interpret this as any kind of master-slave relation (even
in analogy). What I extracted out of this is that the only thing
keeping an impoverished Muslim world linked to the rest
(economically) is oil. It is quite possible that without oil the state
of being 'impoverished' would become much worse.

This is not supposed to be a measure of someones cognitive
abilities. The author is expressing a sentiment shared amongst
non-Muslims. Personally (as an Atheist) the traditional Muslim
culture/religion is potentially the least attrictive and most
offensive to me out of any culture/religion in existence today.







Tiassa Quotes:

How about the premise that Islam's rigidness has and will continue to prevent it's integration with the rest of the world?
The title of the article suggests that the author just wants to
explore the idea that might be defective... much like some of
FireStone's tire designs.

Using a FireStone tire defect as an anology, what
understanding do you think needs to be increased?