Hello Momus,
Originally posted by Momus--
By what measure? Post some examples. I'm geting bored of asking you for sources also. Twice today already you've ignored this.
By any objective measure, but I'll just quote two "fer instances" -
"In a May 2004 poll, conducted by Zogby International and Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland, a majority of Arab respondents in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and a plurality in Morocco and Jordan, identified themselves as Muslims, not Saudis or Jordanians.
Only in Egypt and Lebanon did a majority claim nationality as their primary identity. Substantial pluralities in Jordan, the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia felt that the clergy should play a greater role in the political system. In Egypt, the respondents were almost evenly split, while only in Lebanon and Morocco did slight majorities feel that the clergy "should not dictate the political system." In every country polled a substantial majority felt that the clergy played "too little" a role or a "just right role." " (Source - Middle East Institute)
and
"Religion is central to the identity of European Muslims. With the exception of Muslims in France, they tend to identify themselves primarily as Muslim rather than as British, Spanish, or German. In France, Muslims are split almost evenly on this question. The level of Muslim identification in Britain, Spain, and Germany is similar to that in Pakistan, Nigeria, and Jordan, and even higher than levels in Egypt, Turkey, and Indonesia. By contrast the general populations in Western Europe are far more secular in outlook. Roughly six-in-ten in Spain, Germany, and Britain identify primarily with their country rather than their religion, as do more than eight-in-ten in France." (Source - Pew Research Center)
By comparison we in the west can't even conceive of a majority identifying themselves
not as Americans, or Englishmen, or Dutch but as Christians.
Regarding the PLO, you'll recall that I'm arguing that what we are currently seeing is a massive
resurrgence or
revival of Islamic power and identity. For several hundred years, the West was ascendent and essentially "sat" on the middle-eastern powers during which time we attempted to get them to act Western. As colonial control was released, and the direct influence of the Western powers over the Islamic nations evaporated we've seen the revival of Islam as the organizing force in Islamic society. When the PLO was first organized, the Arab nations were still passing through the post-colonial period when the super-powers were encouraging nationalism and trying to get them into their respective spheres of influence. Now that that period is over the Palestinian people have once again turned to Islam, not politics as the primary unifying force in the struggle.
It certainly is not one of the most prosperous. Most of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a ruling oligarchy, despite that vast wealth per capita income is around a third of the UK's.
I was counting prosperity by GDP not by per capita income. Prosperity in Saudi Arabia can hardly be assessed by per capita income because out of a population of 27 million, 5.5 million are mostly poorly paid foreign laborers. But in any event Saudi Jihadis have overwhelmingly come from the well-off indigenous population.
But set aside that example. I'll give you a better example to show that it has almost nothing to do with economics and everything to do with religion. The Jihadis recently busted in England were
second generation Pakistani Muslims and at least two caucasian converts. Clearly economic oppression or lack of education wasn't the driving factor. It wasn't even sex as some of the conspirators were women. Momus, you keep fishing around for an alternative explanation for the modern Jihad phenomenon that will somehow lay the blame at the doorstep of the West when in fact recent events in your own country have shown that the actual culprit is in fact a movement born not in Washington, or London, but the Arabian peninsula a little under 14 centuries ago.
Well its telling that you bring up fundamentalist christianity in comparsion, but the fact is that the USA is still a secular society, so that's a terrible example.
Actually, I didn't bring it up, your statement was
", show me a single modern prosperous society where extreme fundamentalism of any creed has ever held sway I pointed out that evangelicalism (which is fundamentalist Christianity) has a proportianately large number of adherents and continues to grow in two of the most prosperous modern societies in the world. Unlike Islam, most fundamentalist religions don't have an integrated political theory so they don't have the capacity or the desire to "hold sway."
That's just the type of remark one expects from the neo-con/religious right axis these days. You'd better call me an anti-semite as well as a communist just to make sure.
Momus, I wasn't calling you a Communist, I was just assuming you realized that most modern secular political theory derives in some way from the theories of Marx and Engels. I don't know what you are, but I'd imagine you're politically probably some variety of the standard liberal/materialist/modified-socialist like most modern Europeans. Oh and thanks for the Neo-Con/religious right jab, and here I was thinking I was a paleo-con rather than a neo.
None of the societies we are describing exist in a vaccuum. These are all local issues addressed in religious terms, not religious issues. Hamas got power because Israel marginalised the PLO. Iran was pushed towards the Mullahs in reaction to a western backed dictatorship. Hezbollah arose to resist the Israeli occupation of Lebanon and to fill the social gap left by the civil war.
Notice how in every theory above the blame lies at the doorstep of the West and Israel, you know come to think of it you're right, we are the problem! If the Dar-El-Harb would just cease to exist, we'd have worldwide peace and tranquility under the reign of a single Caliphate ruled according to Sharia. Our continued willful refusal to submit really is the big impediment to peace.
I've asked you before and I'll try again now. If such a large (Tens or hundreds of millions using your figures I think?) proportion of the planet's muslims harbour extremist inclinations, where the hell are all these militants who want to kill us for not being Muslims (which is basically your argument when all is said and done)? They are nowhere, they are just a phantom of a threat that does not exist on the scale you are claiming. They pull off a handful of high profile attacks and suddenly you're seeing them in every dark corner. Bernard Lewis himself said in that article you referred to in the other thread:
Oy, yeah its all a figment of my imagination, along with the 40% mentioned in the Jakarta post, the rioting crowds carrying banners saying behead all blasphemers, the missiles raining down on Israel, the thousands of dead in Darfur, Thailand, Iraq, Chechnya, Beslan, Indonesia, Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Bangladesh, Kosovo, Macedonia, the Phillipines, England, Spain, and NYC. I know, I know, its a coincidence that almost everywhere in the world we have people being slaughtered Islam is a factor. Somehow the Neo-Cons are to blame everywhere. It's the beaten wife syndrome -
"I must be doing something to make him so violent, if only I could stop."I'll freely admit that not every Muslim is a violent "extremist."
But not every National Socialist was violent or extemist, some baked cookies and had nice little gardens and said please and thank you and smiled. That doesn't change the fact that we found out the hard way co-existance with Nazism is impossible.
- SEAGOON
