The Crusades

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
But wouldn't it be fair to hypothesize then that those 2 causes were themselves caused by Islam and thus there is a causal chain linking totalitarian states and Islam after all? Else how do you explain those two causes existing in most Islamic states?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think Islam 'caused' a fear of change (a characteristic of humanity, I think, that has always existed to varying degrees -- long before Mohammed lived); it's when the rejection of modernity becomes an overwhelming and ubiquitous societal concern, or more correctly, when accepting the inevitable changes of modernization cause widespread fear (fear, of course, being one of ways that successful fascists and totalitarians alike can negotiate consent) -- that totalitarianism is bred. In all honesty (and I freely admit to this being idle speculation), but I'm guessing the current Islamic/totalitarian correlation is caused by ( if it even exists )to the fact that the Middle East, and the Islamic world, by and large, missed out on the Industrial Revolution -- for reasons that are many and varied and aren't particularly related to Islam, either.

I'll admit that there's a rather strong case to be made between fundamentalism and adherence to an overly-masculine ethic -- but as Ducat posits, this is a characteristic found in all religious fundamentalism, not Islam alone.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's one that immediately popped into my head, and one that I suspect might have some normativity (although I certainly haven't done a vigorous study, if a vigorous study were even possible):

[/ QUOTE ]

Rejection of modernity (or more broadly, fear of change); Peter Gay's book The Outsider as Insider is a fantastic book that chronicles the culture of the Weimar Republic, and how the rapid modernization of German society led to an immense backlash that spurred the rise of the Third Reich. Little Man, What Now? is closely related and equally important in the study of what led to the rise of the Third Reich...included in Fallada's work (Little Man...)is a rather vivid picture of how fascists rely on using overtly masculine rhetoric (and enacting policies meant to appeal to rectify 'male anxiety') can lead a state to fall prey to leaders who advocate totalitarianism.

Speaking of male anxiety, adherence to an overly-masculine ethic is another theory as to why states that have a foundation of religious fundamentalism (be they Islamic, Christian, or otherwise) will frequently turn to totalitarian or oppressive means of governance. Ducat details in the recently released The Wimp Factor how Holy Wars of all kind are frequently waged to placate mass male hysteria.

So there's two (although I'm sure I could speculate as I have here, and come up with many more) reasons as to why I'm fairly certain that there's not a particularly causal relationship between Islam and totalitarianism, even if there's a correlation between Islam and totalitarianism (and I don't think has ever been successfully demonstrated, either).


[/ QUOTE ]

You're conjecturing theories, and trying to look at Islam through a Western lens. Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, the reason Islamic societies have through many centuries tended towards totalitarian rule, and today so clearly do, is that Islam itself is absolutist and totalitarian, and that it contains prescriptions for totalitarian religious rule? If you would just READ the Koran you would see for yourself...also, instead of trying to look at Islam solely through a Western lens, why not listen to what the Islamic teachers have to say about it? Try to understand it from their point of view, and you will find that the things you and I find scary, they actually applaud (such as forced following of the word of Allah, etc.)

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Amazing...you have the Bible, OK...but you have read very little of the Koran, yet you think you know what it is all about (or more appropriately, what it IS NOT about).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, and again, this is important:

1) I don't just 'have' a Bible; I've read the Bible.
2) I've also read parts of the Koran (but, as I don't know Arabic [and neither do you, as far as I know], I'm limited as to how much I can truly understand of it).

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have time or inclination to write a tome to convince you or others...

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I've seen of your premises and arguments, even with infinite time, you could never write a convincing tome that would convince me or others.

[ QUOTE ]
Funny too you should advise me about pluralism...that's exactly my point, Islam is non-pluralistic, and absolutist...THAT'S what I take issue with. I'm all for pluralism--EXCEPT when one of the entities is non-pluralistic and absolutist. Another way of looking at it is that I'm all for tolerance...but that doesn't give a pass to intolerant persons or intolerant ideologies...I'm all for freedom, but that doesn't mean I support the freedom of "A" to enslave "B"

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't talking about religious pluralism, specifically.

[ QUOTE ]
...you should really read more about what you are defending, Islam is very much an absolutist and totalitarian ideology...it is sad that many Westerners know so little about it, and that they erroneously presume it is just another side of the same coin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, again, again...I don't agree with you, so you try to vainly claim I haven't 'read'. Nowhere have I ever conceded that I haven't 'read' about Islam. It's a conclusion you came to all on your own, for your own pathological reasons.

Like I said, there's a reason you're an island unto yourself. There's a reason your arguments are weak, and you're frequently forced to appeal to emotional arguments that lack reason and coherence, and are full of demagoguery. There's a reason you'd be laughed out of any room full of serious scholars and researchers, and legitimately so. And it's because you've never considered the possibility that you might be wrong, and that you're not persuasive -- so you've forced yourself into repeating the same, old, unconvincing clichés and platitudes that are tired and that you've been forced to spew ad nauseum (because you never bothered to consider other evidence and adapted accordingly).

How many times have I had to read that hackneyed quote you repeat over and over: "As Ibn Warraq says, there may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate"; at least 10 times. Did you think we didn't hear you the first 9? Seriously, think it over.

The moment you realize you could be wrong is the moment you'll come back with better arguments. Great poker players (and if I remember correctly, you're a pretty good poker player who plays at pretty high limits, right?) are keenly aware of the importance of adaption, and accounting for new information. If somethings not working in poker, you're either catching the really awful end of variance, or you're playing badly. I think it's time to consider you might just be playing badly.

Until then, you'll just be spewing the same nonsense over and over, and fighting the same battles over and over -- and claiming you don't care about it all, only to fight the same battle again a week later. Funny I'm not buying the "I don't care" line, either. Care to take a guess why? I've heard it all before, and I'm still not convinced.

[BluffTHIS!]

Just to be clear, DVaut, have you in fact read the Koran? If not then unless you can show MMMMMM to be asserting a factual error about same, doesn't the excerpts from the Koran and the words of other Islamics that MMMMMM has quoted make his case?

And like MMMMMM said, it seems you are making up theories to explain the characteristics of Islamic states from your own perspective simply not to have to acknowledge the simplest explanation is more likely to be right, i.e. what MMMMMM has asserted regarding Islam itself being the cause of totalitarianism in Islamic states. And since it is a simple and prima facie argument, then it would seem incumbent on you not to spin theories but to demonstrate factually and logically that his view is not accurate.

I wonder, could a nation inhabited by citizens who all rigidly adhere to the most extreme interpretation of Islam possibly exist as a secular, democratically elected (allowing 100% suffrage) non aggressive welfare state with open borders and complete religious toleration? If that isn't possible, then clearly M6's correlation exists. If it is possible, then clearly it doesn't.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
You're conjecturing theories,

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's conjecture. It's what I could come up with in 10 minutes.

The theory of evolution is nothing but conjecture (as is, of course, most scientific theories)...which doesn't mean that conjecture isn't informed and improved by solid evidence.

Like I said, I'd like to see an empirical study that proves even a correlation between Islam and totalitarianism. If you know of such a study, please do provide details (don't give me some link to some editorial by some Islamo-phobe cluster [censored] group).

Since no such studies exist (to my knowledge) -- you, me, and everyone else are forced to turn to conjecture. Such is the world. When complete evidence exists is when arguments become pointless. We wouldn't be here talking about this (or having political discourse in general) if complete evidence existed for the wide array of controversial topics that get bickered about endlessly.

[ QUOTE ]
and trying to look at Islam through a Western lens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being a Westerner -- yes, I'm forced to look at Islam through a Western lens. So are you. Don't pretend you've got some extra special, 'worldly' perspective. Perhaps you do, but I'd like to hear what kind of life experiences you’ve had to could make you so worldly. Perhaps you have had some life experience that have provided you with such a perspective. Perusing the pages of TownHall.com doesn't count, mind you.

But I'm all ears if, for instance, you lived for 10 years in Syria or something like that.

[ QUOTE ]
Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, the reason Islamic societies have through many centuries tended towards totalitarian rule, and today so clearly do, is that Islam itself is absolutist and totalitarian, and that it contains prescriptions for totalitarian religious rule?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course I've considered it. I think that possibility is far outweighed by the preponderance of convincing evidence that has led me to believe differently from you, and led me to believe that you're fundamentally wrong.

But sure, obviously, I could be wrong and you could be right -- and I'm willing to consider that, but not merely because you say so.

[ QUOTE ]
If you would just READ the Koran you would see for yourself...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if you would just LEARN Arabic and READ the Koran, you would see for yourself you're wrong (see, arguments that rely on such inane premises like 'you haven't read' are fun, aren't they? I can see why you try this so much. It's alot easier than tying to provide compelling and objective empirical evidence.)

[ QUOTE ]
also, instead of trying to look at Islam solely through a Western lens,

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is, obviously, the lens you're forced to look at Islam solely through, too.

[ QUOTE ]
why not listen to what the Islamic teachers have to say about it? Try to understand it from their point of view, and you will find that the things you and I find scary, they actually applaud (such as forced following of the word of Allah, etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]

How many Islamic teachers are there in the world? Millions? I can name one who disagrees with you.

I used to work with this Islamic scholar, for a short time at the ISR

He almost uniformly disagreed with everything you have to say about Islam.

But then again, I'm not so near-sighted, provincial, or naive as to think that every single Islamic teacher has completely consistent (or even similar) beliefs, either -- so I would never be dumb enough to make such silly and patently dim-witted arguments.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
i.e. what MMMMMM has asserted regarding Islam itself being the cause of totalitarianism in Islamic states.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to be clear, I hold that it is "a" substantial cause, not the "only" cause. I further hold that a society following Islam fully as it is laid out in the Koran must result in a state under absolute religious rule. And for DVaut1: such a state is precisely what the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, and the mullahs in Iran, have been trying to accomplish.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to be clear, DVaut, have you in fact read the Koran?

[/ QUOTE ]

Parts, yes -- in English.

[ QUOTE ]
If not then unless you can show MMMMMM to be asserting a factual error about same, doesn't the excerpts from the Koran and the words of other Islamics that MMMMMM has quoted make his case?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. You think objective research about such matters just means picking up a Holy Book and cherry-picking a few quotes -- and that constitutes a vigorous study of MASS SOCIAL AND POLITICAL BEHAVIOR that comes anywhere close to conclusive?

No, of course they don't make his case -- no more than picking 15 of your favorite Bible verses explains anything meaningful about how Christians have behaved (both historically and contemporarily) in regards to politics and social interactions. Imagine the work it would take to prove such a claim! Think of every Christian leader, ever -- factor in the history of the country in question -- and how said leader responds to their imperatives that exist in the Bible; you could research for years upon years and never even begin to sratch the surface on such a subject!...which doesn't even begin to describe the multitude of factors I didn't even mention!

In the simplest of terms: Did Jimmy Carter, Pope Urban II, George W Bush, Constantine, and other historical and contemporary Christian leaders use their power and authority in the same manner because they all read from and adhered to the same Holy Book?

I should hope we aren't fooled into thinking the world is so easily explained away.

[ QUOTE ]
And like MMMMMM said, it seems you are making up theories to explain the characteristics of Islamic states from your own perspective simply not to have to acknowledge the simplest explanation is more likely to be right, i.e. what MMMMMM has asserted regarding Islam itself being the cause of totalitarianism in Islamic states.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain to me why M's explanation is objectively the simplest explanation. Realize that, to satisfactorily prove why M's is just the simplest explanation (and not necessarily the correct one) would take months of research at a top-notch research institution.

Good luck.

[ QUOTE ]
And since it is a simple and prima facie argument, then it would seem incumbent on you not to spin theories but to demonstrate factually and logically that his view is not accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

OH, okay! So convincing arguments work like this: you posit something controversial -- and the onus falls on those who DISAGREE (or even just casual onlookers?) to produce evidence that REFUTES the proposed theory, lest said theory stand as true.

Yikes.

[BluffTHIS!]

It is true that the onus is on one who asserts something to prove it likely or certainly to be true, rather than upon him who disputes that assertion.

Nonetheless, although you are trying to label MMMMMM's quotes "cherry picking", they seem to be valid unless you can show they were taken out of context (he is asserting that they weren't I assume).

The simplest explanation:

1. The Koran advocates war and violence to convert unbelievers and punish those who are deemed to have offended Islam.

2. The history of Islamic states from the time of the caliphs has been one of authoritarianism in the name of religion.

3. Islam advocates the imposition of Shari'a law as the basis for the judicial system even if it means using violent means to achieve this (Iran and Islamic Northern Nigeria are prime examples).

4. Since the state is thus based upon holy writ and the will of Allah, then democracy can have little place except for expressing the will of the masses regarding mundane matters, and thus a totatlitarian state is the likeliest result.

[MMMMMM]

DVaut1,

Obviously there is no point in trying to convince you: I will color you "unconvinced."

The best I can do, short of producing reams of links and footnotes, is to suggest that you further read the Koran, and read what imams and mullahs have said and written--if you want to gain a better understanding of Islam from an Islamic point of view.

If and when you do, you may find that many of the ideas we might consider unfortunate or unattractive, they find worthy and attractive; Ideas such as: human rights being determined by GOD not by MAN; freedom being not to do what one wishes but rather the freedom to follow God's instructions; lesser rights being appropriate for non-followers of God's word; the basis of good government being the laws made by GOD, NOT laws made by men; the state of "peace" being where Islam dwells, and the state of "war" being where Islam (which is God's word and will) finds resistance.

You may find the non-Western, Islamic perspective on things quite a eye-opening experience--if you choose to find what it is really all about, from those who have lived it thoroughly all their lives (not some liberal Western scholars offering their views on it; rather, straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

If nothing else, you might find such views startlingly refreshing, in a way--and rather scary at the same time. But at least you would be hearing what *Islam* has to say about Islam--not what some Western professors or coffee-housers have to say about it, in the context of their postmodern analyses.

Who do you think really knows Islam? George Bush--or the head imam in the Grand Mosque in Mecca? Ducat--or the Ayatollah Khomeini? Or how about Mohammed--do you think he might have known something about Islam, perhaps? Why not read what they, and other Islamic leaders, say and have said--about Islam??