This post is rue to get me some flack, but what the hell.
My question: “What the hell is wrong with Islam?”
Why is it that almost every religious leader in the United States does everything he/she can to make sure that his/her people have access to the franchise, while the sole goal of the religious leaders in Islamic countries is to deny their people the fraanchise?
Is Islam fundamentally incapable of accepting democracy? I’m tired of hearing about how Islam is ‘a peaceful religion.’ I read the damn news- I know who is causing what problems. I want some evidence, not just anecdotes.
I just find it sickening that the ‘religious’ leaders in Afghanistan are threatening their flock with death for exercising the right to vote.
superhawk
The problem is that, unlike christianity and the west, Islam never seperated itself from the idea it ruled people secularly as well. Until that happens, Islam and countries that subscribe to its tenets, will be an irrelevancy in the modern world.
shark
Why is it that almost every religious leader in the United States does everything he/she can to make sure that his/her people have access to the franchise, while the sole goal of the religious leaders in Islamic countries is to deny their people the fraanchise
Quite simply put, you cannot compare the major religions in the US today to current Islamic leaders, because Islamic leaders are still intellectually and ethically centuries of development behind.
Way back when, the various leaders of the church and judiaism weren’t so anxious to get people “access to the franchise” – in fact, their power depended on quite the opposite.
The point is that Islam is centuries of development and growth and maturity behind.
Ken Hahn
Two basic tenets of Islam make it incapable of living with other faiths. First, it is permitted and perhaps required to spread Islam by force. Second, it is not permitted to leave Islam. The penalty for apostasy is death. So long as these remain in place, Islam will not compete, it will try to conquer.
Oliver
“I tell my Republican friends who are always talking about the ‘big tent,’ I say make it as big as you want to, but if the candidate running for president is not pro-life, pro-family . . . you’re not going to win,” – Jerry Falwell 9/25/04
Same shit.
the friendly grizzly
I don’t believe I have ever heard Falwell wish death on someone for voting, much less HOW they vote.
Robertson may channel Gawuddah regarding hurricanes and the like, but even he hasn’t called for death to those exercising the franchise.
David M. McClory
Here is quite a bit of the answer.
Islam’s political governance is not as detailed as its piety, family law and other aspects. By the time the Abbasid Empire came about (from the 750s AD) the rulers may have had some influence as Islamic Law was approaching the final stages of being codified.
Ultimately, they made sure that a minimal standard was set for what Muslims had to tolerate from their rulers. Some of your readers will have heard something like “if the ruler permits prayer, that they are an acceptable ruler.
The consequence is that Muslims have had to put up with thugs and poor governance for much of its 14 centurys of existence.
Until Ayatallah Khomaini made an arguement about “Zulm”, or “oppression” a Muslim had little from his or her religion to justify resiting a bad government.
I do not mean to say that Muslim political though does not have much more to say about how good governance is conducted. Notice, though, that many in the Muslim world turned to Communism and Nationalism in the last century until the Muslim Brotherhood and, like I said, Khomaini started to show a way for a more “political” Islam.
The development of this latter ideology into the the horrid terrorism to al-Qa’idah is another story, and it is not the only strain to result from a more political Islam.
Your President Bush (I am Canadian) seems to be doing a favour for the development of a healthier version of political Islam—killing the nihilists, and letting the rest vote. The Indiscriminate Jihad Party needs to be beaten down, and most Muslims, even the fundamentalist types will take to the ballot box in a way that will stupify Juan Cole and Senator Kerry.
This bodes very well for the future.
bains
It is better (or more socially acceptable) to hate GW Bush, and by extension the US, than to reap the fruits of democracy.
Kimmitt
This isn’t about Islam, per se. It’s about religious leaders using their political authority to attempt to increase their political authority. It’s consistent with Christian (and Buddhist, and Confucian, and Shinto, and animist) history during those periods in which religious leaders and political leaders had more of an overlap.
Slartibartfast
Which was, as shark noted, centuries ago. So, it’s not Islam so much as it is that Islam is at least a couple of centuries behind the rest of the world? Sounds like you’re coming down hard on the side of that it’s Islam, Kimmitt.
I know, nuance. But it’s hard to make the case for it being a cultural thing when the culture pretty much springs wholly from the religion.
Kimmitt
Which was, as shark noted, centuries ago.
Er, no. Who do you think was behind Kansas’s decisions to pull evolution from the textbooks back in the day? It’s religious leaders trying to keep people from hearing things that are in opposition to their view and using their political power to enforce it. It’s a matter of degree, not kind.
The difference between Christianity and Islam is that the secularists have beaten the Christian power centers (mostly) out of politics. You’ll note that Muslims in the US don’t have these kinds of problems — it’s about the nature of the regime the religion finds itself under, not the religion itself.
it’s hard to make the case for it being a cultural thing when the culture pretty much springs wholly from the religion.
If the religion is the culture, then how do you explain Bangladesh, India, or Indonesia, which have serious religion-related problems but entirely different expressions of them?
Tim
The DNC must have a mighty big tent its own bad self, to fit Oliver’s huge, lying ass inside.
Tman
And therein lies the problem.
Kimmit and Oliver equate marginalized issues of religious extremism in the US (in this case Christianity) in regards to text books and idiots like Pat Robertson, and compare them to violent psychopathic murderers like Zarqawi and Bin laden.
Arguing to include creationism in science textbooks while incredibly stupid, is not comparable to CUTTING PEOPLES FRIGGING HEADS OFF BECAUSE THEY DON”T BELIEVE IN YOUR GOD.
ahem…..(regaining composure)…
And this sir Willis and Kimmit, is why you and your ilk will get laughed out of the ballot box in much the way Latham was in Australia. You underestimate the ability of middle America to see the finer points at your own peril.
Slartibartfast
World-class red herrings. Or are you claiming that a majority of the voting public in Kansas didn’t want that, voted against it, but were overruled by the theocrats? Did I claim that all Christendom was free of idiocy, when I wasn’t looking?
Kimmitt
Another great example is the various Catholic discussions of denying the Eucharist to politicians who vote pro-choice (but do not advocate such measures for politicians who violate other Church policies). The difference is not between Christianity and Islam (as, again, is made perfectly clear by the lack of Muslim threats against the lives of their followers by American Muslim leaders). The difference is that in Afghanistan, the religious leaders have temporal power, while in the US, they do not. Bishops may have some sway over Senator Kerry’s immortal soul, and they seem to be willing to use that sway to try to impose their political will, but they have little power over his body, so they are impotent in the temporal plane.
The difference is always in the secular institutions, not the religion. When Christian (or any other religious) authority has found itself in a position of temporal authority, it takes the steps necessary to consolidate and continue its authority.
You’re right, to some extent, that the difference is that there is no Islamic equivalent to the Enlightenment. But the Enlightenment is a set of shackles upon Christian power structures that many of them consistently seek to break free from. Fundamentalism is fundamentalism, whether it wears the guise of Catholic robes or Muslim dress.
Dodd
An even larger red herring since the Catholic Church has both the right and the duty to enforce its doctrine as it sees fit. I think you’ll find Catholics are also not supposed to take eucharist if they are un-absolved adulterers, as well, just as a for instance.
That said – and Oliver’s nonsensical moral equivalence between a gasbag (takes one to know one, I guess) and committed killers noted and acknowleged – I don’t think it’s fair to say that Islam per se is incompatible with democracy. India has more Muslims than pretty much anywhere and is a functional demcoracy. So, too, Malyasia. They may not run as smoothly as Western countries, but they do generally understand and abide by the rule of law and their leaders step down when voted out or at the expiration of their terms. That’s more than can be said of, say, largely Catholic Venezuala.
It is the virulent jihadist strain of Islam that cannot co-exist with democracy. To take the permitted proselyzation by force as a required tenet of one’s ideology is fundamentally incompatible with the democratic institutions.
Add in the ever-increasing pressure of open societies and world-wide communication on the insularity that has allowed them to fester within a limited range up til now and it’s clear that terrorism is their last gasp before going down for the third time. Unfortunately, they’ve made it clear that they intend to take as many heretics with them as they can get, so it’s necessary for us to hold their heads under water until they give up the ghost and just sink.
Kimmitt
To take the permitted proselyzation by force as a required tenet of one’s ideology is fundamentally incompatible with the democratic institutions.
With all due respect, what do you think prayer in schools is? It is the use of the coercive power of the state to convert children to (or support the previous conversion of children to) a given religion. I agree that fundamentalism is in many ways incompatible with modern liberal democracy. I just refuse to pretend that it is only Muslim fundamentalism that has this quality.
Further, my interpretation leads to something resembling a rational policy that doesn’t involve us fighting a war with over a billion people. It has the qualities of both some universality and a hopeful plan for success.
JKC
Dodd’s the only one here on the right who gets it. (Although he should have added Turkey to the list of functioning democracies in the Islamic world.)
Kimmit’s correct, too:
Let’s not confuse the enemy here: it’s fundamentalist Islamic extremists who are the enemy, not Islam itself.
Slartibartfast
Finally, something that JKC and I agree on. Of course, it’s still arguable that fundamentalist Islam has hijacked Islam to a some non-negligible extent, but that’s a discussion for another day.
Also, Dodd’s right on the communion bit. But along with that, this: if the Catholic Church were serious in their allegations that Kerry’s running counter to doctrine in his voting, the end of this particular path would be excommunication.
Chris
I could be considered a fundamentalist, since I believe the Bible to be literally God’s Word. This position exposits that any error or contradiction is an error in translation or interpretation. Given my beliefs, I have never heard any Christian call for the death or forcible conversion of anyone who disagrees with their version of the Truth. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have said a great many idiotic and objectionable things, but these were not among them. The fringes of Christianity are isolationist, preferring to withdraw from the world and it’s pernicious influence. The fringes of Islam have proved to be intractably set on forcible conversion or death of all infidels eventually. There is a gulf between the two positions. My belief requires that I attempt to convert others to my religion, but nothing in it requires that they submit to my overtures. This is the problem with Islam.
Sandi
Well you are all looking at the wrong problem.
In spite of the retoric and objections from the Afghan religious leaders, their election was pretty much uneventful so far, concidering the pre-election hype. More curious to me was that so many here in the MSM were claiming that the Afghan election couldn’t be fair, and that “Chaos” would be the result. We should be so fortunate here next month.
There is little chance our elections will run as smooth. Read Mac Johnson’s commentary at Insight On The News; “Fair Elections in Afghanistan – Could America Be Next?”
Steve
What a load of idiocy. Saying you aren’t going to win is the same as a threatening somebody with death.
Bwahahaha.
You have become so idiotic Oliver.
I think this is getting closer to the answer. Not only is, as it has been pointed out, is this similar to Christianity from centuries ago, it is an example of tribalism that is all too frequently inherent in Islam. Many of the tribal leaders use Islam to shore up their political power.
Why do you think so many of these leaders oppose modernization. Can’t have the sheep seeing there is a much larger world out there.
True religious leaders in the U.S. use the political system, but that is the freaking point. They USE the system. What Cole is pointing out is that the religious leaders in Afghanistan are trying to keep people from using the democratic system.
Contradict yourself much? The answer to the above is actually the negation of the above. Secularist have gotten the religious leaders to accept a political process that allows for people to participate in partly determining their future.
Kimmitt
I have never heard any Christian call for the death or forcible conversion of anyone who disagrees with their version of the Truth. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have said a great many idiotic and objectionable things, but these were not among them.
Ann Coulter: “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.”
We also get into Robertson’s calling the wrath of God on to Orlando for tolerating “Gay Days” and claiming that all natural disasters which afflicted the state afterwards were said wrath.
I’m sorry, but your portrayal of a peaceful, insular fundamentalism is at odds with the public faces and actions of the movement.
What Cole is pointing out is that the religious leaders in Afghanistan are trying to keep people from using the democratic system.
And my point was that the decision to use or not use the political system was a function of whether or not the system gets them power, not any significant difference in the worldview. In the US, they get things they want (and they are too weak to use nonlegal means), so they play the game.
Dodd
I learned a long time ago not to even try to argue with you, Kimmit, because you are a moron. Here you prove you either cannot read or are so desperate to hijack this thread into you preferred attack on American Christians who have never threatened anyone with death that you are incapable of comprehending plain English. Your history being so rife with it, one assumes the latter to be the case here.
Allow me to parse my own sentence for you: “To take the permitted proselyzation by force” refers to the tenets of Islam that allow, but do not mandate, conversion by the sword. By violent physical, force, Kimmit.
“…as a required tenet of one’s ideology” refers to jihadism, which places conversion by the sword – or, at least, expulsion of the infidel from territory claimed by the jihadi (see Darfur) – by force at the very epicentre of theological doctrine. Violent physical, force, Kimmit.
Finally “…is fundamentally incompatible with the democratic institutions” is self-evident. Democracy is, at the root, the exercise of political power by autonomous, self-directed individuals. Doctrines that revolve around force are its very antithesis.
Now, I am no proponent of mandatory prayer in schools (though, as an attorney, I can find nothing in the Constitution that forbids voluntary prayer or other faith-related activity), but I nonetheless happen to think that anyone who would draw an equivalence between the use of violence and physical force to spread ones beliefs and the subtle coercion of seeing one’s friends pray when one would prefer not to is too stupid to be allowed to wander around undersupervised. The absolute worst one could say about prayer in schools is that it exerts a subtle form of coercion. This is somewhat removed from the Spanish Inquisition (no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!), though to hear you speak of it, they are essentially the same.
The thing is, our courts have gone so far overboard in interpretting the clause of the First Amendment that prohibits the Federal gov’t from establishing a state religion that the current state of jurisprudence can only be described as open and official hostility toward religious expression – not the neutrality mandated by the document.
Yet your “fundamentalist” fellow citizens (I should note that I am not one of them; I’m not even a Christian) do not rise up in revolt of the government’s risible rejection of their Constitutional rights. They agitate, they vote, they peaceably assemble and, once in a while, they stage a protest action.
Ergo, your insipid suggestion that there is today in America a strain of religious extremism teetering on the edge of violence and slavering to introduce theocracy to the United States is null and void. Religious Americans of every description know one thing for certain: religious pluralism in the United States works and should never be disturbed for it makes everyone safe in their own beliefs. What they want – as you would know if you ever actually listened to them rather than constantly looking for ways to demonize and marginalize them – is for the promise of religious pluralism to be upheld. That requires official neutrality, and it is not currently being acheived.
Tman
Kimmit,
Show me all of the headless bodies killed in the last, oh fifty years because of Christianity.
I have a HUGE PILE of bodies from the Islamic side. Killed because they weren’t Islamic.
Once again, there is a difference between Ann Coulters comment and CUTTING PEOPLE FUCKING HEADS OFF.
It distrbs me that you fail to see the difference and in fact compare the two at all. The two are idiots, but that is where the comparison ends.
Ann Coulter will not be beheading anyone tonight. Can’t say the same for say, a Zarqawi.
Tman
Hey Dodd,
“today in America a strain of religious extremism teetering on the edge of violence and slavering to introduce theocracy to the United States is”
Well, Islam….
Sandi
Though Kimmitt is blatently wrong, I see your arguements with him unfair…
You are having a battle of wits with a totally unarmed person.
Dodd
Tman: Touché!
That said, I aver – and I’m sure you’ll agree – that the vast majority of American Muslims agree that religious pluralism is a vital part of the fabric of American society and support it accordingly.
Sandi: Yeah, we know.
Terry
Never waste your time arguing with a certifiable psychotic like Kimmitt. Frankly, I’m surprised that his handlers are letting him have access to the internet again.
Chris
Ann Coulter is a political commentator, not a religious leader. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (to a lesser extent) are considered fringe actors by most Christians, including the fundamentalists. I am merely pointing out the difference between the fringes in each religion. I am unaware of any fatwas issued by responsible Christian leaders.
timekeeper
Chris:
The fact that you had to use an Arabic word to describe the concept is in itself instructive. The concept does not exist elsewhere because it is a uniquely Islamic concept (although not all Islamic countries are Arabic).
–
Which brings me to my other point. Several posters here have noted functioning Islamic democracies such as Turkey, Bangladesh, and Malaysia (other examples exist). The point is that none of these countries are Arabic,and all have sizeable ethnic and religious minorities. It is quite possible that either or both of these conditions are required for a successful Islamic democracy to take root. Perhaps we will discover with Iraq, which is both Arabic and overwhelmingly Islamic. I do hope that I am wrong, and democracy is possible in such a state.
Slartibartfast
I too had wondered when Ann got herself elected Pope.
Kimmitt
Meh. Anyone who pretends that Eric Rudolph is somehow part of a different dynamic than Islamic fundamentalism is welcome to their foolishness.
Slartibartfast
Yes, and they mounted a widespread, years-long manhunt, at the end of which they arrested him just to make it look as if the State disapproved of his actions. Sneaky bastards.
Consider how many fundamentalist Christians have committed murder as an expression of their faith, as opposed to the number of fundamentalist Muslims. Are you seriously claiming there’s anything like a rational comparison here?
Kimmitt
I understand that the reflexive loathing may make it difficult to read my posts, but for goodness’ sakes, they’re only two paragraphs long! My point is that the fundamentalists pursue power by the levers available to them. Because of the political culture in the US, they get more power at the ballot box. Because of the political culture in Afghanistan, they get more power at the point of a gun. There is no reason whatsoever to think that if the situations were reversed, their differences in philosophy would make any difference. Why is this important? Because if you are repulsed by the violence and dominating spirit of Islamic fundamentalism, you need to take a close look at your allies, the Christian fundamentalists.
The Taliban locks women in their houses, the Pope cuts them out of the Catholic hierarchy, the Baptist church calls on women to submit to their husbands. It’s all the same crap; it’s all the same philosophy; the difference lies in the context.
Slartibartfast
Yes, keeping Ann Coulter from being Pope is just exactly like sawing someone’s head off on camera.
Screw context. Actions are what’s important. Using the same logic, I could argue that you’re just as bad as those who snatch random people off the street and kill them on camera, simply because you’re part of this paternalistic cheauvinist society.
Fundamentalist Christianity doesn’t condone murder in any form, Kimmitt. And, fortunately, when women tire of the Pope locking them out of the heirarchy, they have the freedom to go to another religious sect that allows a more equal participation.
Maybe we’ll be just as bad as them until we have unisex bathrooms.