Islam versus the Secular West

[Marcus O'Reillius]

I'd like to start a discussion as to whether you think the fundamental Muslim movement can be reconciled to the secular Western world, or if Islam is headed on a collision course with it.

I find it odd that what fostered then-cutting edge development should turn inward 800 years ago now tries to take the 21st back to the 12th century.

Can the Muslim society which sets it foundational relationship between people based on shame be reconciled to the Judeo-Christian society which sets its foundational relationship between people based on guilt - co-exist between nations?

[Teiwaz]

Shame v Guilt...hmm, what a choice!

I think the biggest issue with reconciliation is that they want to exterminate the infidels, while christians want to convert the muslims. Putting aside methodology employed in the past, christian religions don't put non-believers, or different believers, to the sword, or the bomb.

I keep seeing people say the extremists don't represent all muslims, but I see bugger all that suggests mainstream muslim leaders are doing anything to curb the extremists. The gap is more a crack than a gulf. Where in the modern world do, say, the Catholics, have declared holy wars on non-Catholics?

It's not a collision course, it is an ongoing series of collisions, like 2 endless trains with infinite carriages just plowing into each other.

And isn't Islam more about absolute obedience than shame per se? Sharia isn't just religious doctrine, it is the absolute law that is to govern the Muslim nations. Complete fundamentalism. The christian religions of the secular West have a much more subtle political interplay, and really provide a moral and personal code of behaviour.

[The_Man]

Marcus,

I think you need only look at the US to answer the question as to whether the Muslim society can peacefully coexist with the Judeo-Christian society. We have been doing it for years. Mainly because our founding fathers, had the wisdom to make provisions to separate church and state and protect religious freedom of choice.

I think that the main problem is with the radical Muslim movement that falsely claims to be founded on fundamental doctrine. It is compounded by the fact that many of the regions where the radical doctrine is proliferating have seen huge monetary power increases as a result of the ever-growing demand for oil. These radical movements have exploited the rapid growth of this power and control the people by fear, tyranny and a clever misrepresentation of fundamental Muslim doctrine.

This is another reason that I think that the US involvement in the Mid-east can be a good thing in that they now have a good chance in Iraq to establish a model that could be good example to other countries in the region. The problem is that the radical groups and governments in that part of the world do not want to loose the absolute control over the people that a democratic society would inevitably bring about.

[Teiwaz]

,The problem is that the radical groups and governments in that part of the world do not want to loose the absolute control over the people that a democratic society would inevitably bring about.


Ain't that the truth!

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Shame v Guilt...hmm, what a choice!
As a side note, this is something I've been accustomed to thinking is the fundamental difference between the two cultures. It came about by reading a long time ago in an account by an Israeli policeman who had to enforce law in a Palestinian area in the eighties.

He described a situation where he encountered a noisy congregation of people in the street surrounding a man who was covered with blood holding a knife and shouting that he had just killed his daughter. She had lost her virginity and so had "shamed" him. In accordance with some provision of the Koran, he then killed her. The crowd agreed with him, was supporting him, and was applauding his gruesome decision to kill his daughter.

The policeman said there was a fundamental schism in enforcing the Judeo-Christian style laws in such a circumstance. He was the one who said we operate by guilt, but Muslims operate by shame.

I have since thought about this and I see the same thing happening more often. Like the Oriental concept of "saving face," shame allows people to commit horrific acts because of some slight. Osama bin Laden and other fundamental leaders refer to Christians as Crusaders. The slight they feel from a distant historical defeat and repeated (though largely unsuccessful subsequent invasions of the Holy Land) crusades allows them to take what we see as unprovoked attacks against innocent civilians.

Thus shame allows one to commit murder and receive blessing in the Islamic faith. One of the reasons fundamental Islam (like Wahhabism) spreads so well in prisons is that it teaches the person is not wrong, and moreover, justifies revenge for the slight of being imprisoned.

While under the Judeo-Christian basis a wrongful act brings on not shame but remorse or guilt. Rather than retaliate the person is directed towards confession and repentance.

Islam: fornication -> shame of father -> murder of daughter = good.
J-C: fornication -> guilt of daughter -> confession/repentance = good.

These are two totally different perspectives on how to respond to life's circumstances and I wonder if the two can ever be truly reconciled.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

We have been doing it for years. Mainly because our founding fathers, had the wisdom to make provisions to separate church and state and protect religious freedom of choice.
True. But then, the Muslim population within the U.S. is such a minority that their concerns are not being presently addressed. Once they aggregate in greater numbers, then they have shown a will to press for addressing certain concerns of their religions which keeps them separate from secular society's laws.

I think that the main problem is with the radical Muslim movement that falsely claims to be founded on fundamental doctrine.
Actually, having read some books by former Muslims and experts on the Middle East in particular concerning Islam, I note that the fundamental doctrine has plenty of support within the Koran and the historical books describing the life of their prophet (who under Torah standards was no prophet at all) when it is read in a literal fashion.

The majority of the Muslim population in the U.S. takes a more liberal interpretation of passages which describe outright warfare against unbelief in their (moon-god) Allah and Muhammad which by the way is the first pillar of their belief system. The moderate wing of Islam takes a symbolic approach to reading these passages and says they describe the "spiritual" warfare the Muslim must combat in his life. Thus they are not "at war" with the secular society around them and so are "safe."

This is another reason that I think that the US involvement in the Mid-east can be a good thing in that they now have a good chance in Iraq to establish a model that could be good example to other countries in the region. The problem is that the radical groups and governments in that part of the world do not want to loose the absolute control over the people that a democratic society would inevitably bring about.
On a geo-political level what has been done in the last five years is unprecedented. Until now, the only democratic republic in the region has been Israel, with the Arab countries surrounding her being ruled as monarchies, oligarchies, or tyrannies.

It will be interesting to see if Iraq and Afghanistan, without any history of self-determination by their people, can make the leap to a republic (nation of laws) or whether they will splinter among the various factions as they succumb to the democratic (mob rule by majority) forces inherent in our style of governance.

If the West is successful in Iraq, it will not only divide up the triple threat Syria, Iraq and Iran represented to the West and make cooperation between Syria and Iran in support of various terrorist organizations more difficult, but it will send a message to the other Arab governments as well that the way they’ve done business since the twentieth century may be at an end as well.

[Teiwaz]

Jeese Marcus, you know your stuff. Thanks for these extremely interesting posts. As I hoped, I am learning my arse off on this site already.

["shazbat"]

Key term here is "fundamental"
Fundamentalist translates to extremist, letter of the law believers. There is no room for acceptance of other doctrine or believers in other doctrine.
This is true of any belief, not just Islam.
The religion evolved in a feudal society which has largely not progressed from that state.
There are more parts to this overall issue than can be easily represented here so I'll leave it to the initial statement.
With that "Where there's true fundamentalism there can be no peaceful coexistance"
As for "cutting edge technology", Yes a good many of the early "arts" including functional written language and many of the mathematical arts developed in that area BUT they were "pre-islamic" creations.
The followers of Mohammed haven't had a free thought since adopting the faith.

[nelson]

I think we are seeing the beginnings of the long collision process of reform. Peaceful coexistence with other religions is not in Islamic law, which preaches destruction and dhimmitization of infidels. But Islam has yet to reform itself, and Muslim nations will need to if they wish to progress and prosper with the Western world. There is no doubt that the West is imminently better equipped for this collision, but we are also handicapped by indecision and a lack of unity. So I think the real question is, how many casualties will there be at the hands of Islamic idealism? And just how strong can "reform Muslims" be in their efforts to push for new, more peaceful ideals... within their Islamic autocracies? It's hard to say. The Iraq project may be the first keystone in building an archway that leads to Islamic reform.

Currently I have yet to see an empowered "moderate" wing of Islam and I am not convinced such a wing really exists. Before I believe it, I will have to see this vocalized by Muslims who have influence over other Muslims... and not by the Western media with their growing history of misrepresentations. Until then, I remain skeptical. I also do not believe that today there is such a thing as peaceful coexistence between Muslims who are not a minority (and necessarily subdued) and other religions. Just my honest take.

["shazbat"]

Nelson, I agree about "no moderate Islamic influenece". Contrary to their doctrine. Still talking "fundamentalist" here.
We're not going to solve this any time soon.
Actually what ever you think of it it just struck me that we owe our western outlook to Roman Empirical society.
They built upon the Grecian philosopic beginnings and added unified purpose and a sense of social duty on a grand scale.
Somehow the middle east just never caught on. Too fragmented and feudal.
Just a stray thought.

["shazbat"]

Shame v Guilt...hmm, what a choice!

I think the biggest issue with reconciliation is that they want to exterminate the infidels, while christians want to convert the muslims. Putting aside methodology employed in the past, christian religions don't put non-believers, or different believers, to the sword, or the bomb.

I keep seeing people say the extremists don't represent all muslims, but I see bugger all that suggests mainstream muslim leaders are doing anything to curb the extremists. The gap is more a crack than a gulf. Where in the modern world do, say, the Catholics, have declared holy wars on non-Catholics?

And isn't Islam more about absolute obedience than shame per se? Sharia isn't just religious doctrine, it is the absolute law that is to govern the Muslim nations. Complete fundamentalism. The christian religions of the secular West have a much more subtle political interplay, and really provide a moral and personal code of behaviour.

The key is "Secularism". It allows reason, rationallity and common sense, even if adapted from religious doctrine, to moderate governing bodies.
It can only flourish in an environment of religious freedom and tolerance.
The teachings of Islam don't allow for secular mediation. Everything is black or white, right or wrong, with no middle ground.

While there are many moderate Muslims willing to coexist with non Muslims, they're like many of us that are willing to coexist. They're non violent, they just want to let be, they're not pushy, they want to be left in peace to live their lives, and the kicker, they don't have the guns and wouldn't use them if they did.
If you're a moderate Muslim in that world and are insane enough to declare it the radicals will kill you and probably all of your family as well. Best to just hold up in your home and hope it doesn't get bombed.

[Sonrisa]

In my very simplistic, I realize, view -----Disclaimer: I am a total atheist in the sense that most people think of a personal deity. With the possible exception of Mother Theresa, and I think she would have been better served to be handing out birth control, I see no good whatever coming from any organized religion, only ignorance and cruelty. An old man I knew used to tell me that spirituality is the worship and religion is the form of worship. The form seems to be somewhat lacking.

That said, though I am have very little information on Islam (I did have a book on understanding Islam, and to my everlasting shame and ignorance in a moment of panic I put it in the trash out of fear of the current administration) This was right after the last election. It is pretty much the only religion I don't know a little something about. We are always pontificating about how morally superior we are to other countries, but it seems to be an illusion. I think the majority of our citizens are men and women of good will. I think if we were better informed we would make better choices, but I don't think we are inherently superior.

From what little I have gleaned from the news it would appear that true Islam makes no allowance for deviation from their beliefs and does admonish them to "kill the infidel". I used to work for a Syrian gentleman who was in real estate and one of our agents was a Jew. He nodded to Steve (Jew) one day and then back to his elderly uncles (Syrian) sitting in his office, and said in the old days in Syria, Steve would be dead. Then they all laughed. My boss became a born again Christian when he realized that in El Paso you sell more real estate that way (though I have no doubt many are sincere).

The reason a lot of us appear "more reasonable and flexible" is that few religions of any sort in the US are practiced in their original exacting form.

Our current laws in the US do not allow for the overt blatant murder of women and men for their religious "failures"; it is far more subtle than that and not nearly as frequent. Again this is about power. Now it is called gay bashing like that poor boy in Wyoming, domestic violence, denying someone an abortion so that the mother might live. I don't think Christians and Islamics can co-exist peacefully for very long unless the Islamics have a form of reformed version, as in reformed jew verus orthodox jew. I don't know enough about Islam to know. I worry a lot about the religious right in this country and mean far, far right. It's all about power. Everything is about power. Those that have it will wield it, and those who don't will suffer.

I would hate to see this, however, used as a red flag to more interference and intervention by the US. It appears to this very jaundiced eye that we are constantly "saving" countries that don't want to be saved. Then we are offended at their ingratitude.

Marcus if you could recommend a really good book on Islam I'd like to read it.

In my world, simply put....religion = money, money = power and power makes men and women go insane with power lust.....then all hell breaks loose. It's sad that humanity has not evolved any further than we have.

If Islam ever invades this country and I am unable to leave, as a woman I will commit suicide that very day. I absolutely could/would not live like that.

I have no idea what to do now. I hope people far better informed than me with clear and stable heads prevail and figure it out. I do know the Japanese believed in the infallabilty and god-hood of the emperor and also had suicide bombers, and were much more contained than islamics, and the only way they were stopped was, sad to say, near extermination. We coexist with them now, but they don't worship the emperor any more. I am no doubt 100% wrong on all of this, but this is my take.

The fall of Rome and of the British Empire seems to parallel the US situation right now. Just my two cents.

Sonrisa

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Marcus if you could recommend a really good book on Islam I'd like to read it.
I'd recommend anything by Bernard Lewis.

According to my sleeve notes he is the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor fo Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University. A highly recommended authority on Middle Eastern history, he is the author of over two dozen books, most notably The Arabs in History, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, The Political Language of Islam, The Muslim Discovery of Europe and The Middle East: a Brief History of the Last 2000 Years.

I read What Went Wrong? He's very astute.

[The_Man]

In my very simplistic, I realize, view -----Disclaimer: I am a total atheist in the sense that most people think of a personal deity. With the possible exception of Mother Theresa, and I think she would have been better served to be handing out birth control, I see no good whatever coming from any organized religion, only ignorance and cruelty.

Sonrisa.
I too am a simple person; I too see many problems with "Organized Religion”. That said I am a Christian and have my beliefs and due to my faith I wish you shared them also, but that is totally up to you.

Here is a link to some info on Mother Teresa.

http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1979/teresa-bio.html

She was truly a simple and selfless woman that was able to accomplish much to help the less fortunate in her time. She did it not for fame or recognition, but because she knew it was the right thing to do. She did not care that others might have thought she would have been better served doing something else, she simply did what she could and devoted her life to helping others. I am much too selfish a person to give up all of my comforts to devote my life in such a way, but it is an inspiration to see what can be accomplished when you do.

The reason a lot of us appear "more reasonable and flexible" is that few religions of any sort in the US are practiced in their original exacting form.

Our current laws in the US do not allow for the overt blatant murder of women and men for their religious "failures"; it is far more subtle than that and not nearly as frequent. Again this is about power.

I am glad that you said our "current" laws because there was a time in our short history that this was not the case. We as a country have really come a long way in a relatively short time compared to most other western cultures.

Everything is about power. Those that have it will wield it, and those who don't will suffer.

Sad to say but this condition knows no borders; it is a condition inherent in man. I can only try to improve how I deal with it in my own little world.

If Islam ever invades this country and I am unable to leave, as a woman I will commit suicide that very day. I absolutely could/would not live like that.

This is where you and I would definitely differ; to me some things are worth fighting for and suicide in my opinion is just giving up.

[jarhead]

islam is going to clash with the west eventually if not already, remember they want us dead, after 911 most muslims would not publicly denounce the attack, what does that tell you? good versus evil that is the times we live in. most wars are always about religion, in my opinion islam is evil, i have read some of the karan, scary is all i have to say about it. and when you think about it a christian US pres and muslim enemy leaders HMMMM!! by the way i am not religious dont believe in it