European Muslim Hate Poll

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

What has yet to be mentioned, and often is in discussions of islam, is that it's not just a religion by design. It is also a system of government as laid out in both the koran and the hadith (yes, I know the hadith is more apocryphal,although IMO everything about monotheism is). It is unique among the monotheisms in that it is not just a spiritual guide, it is a guide to governance as well. It is also, at this point an time, the most illiberal and hard line of all the world's religions and this is beyond dispute. It also has a stated inherent goal to convert the entire world to its teachings.

Even given the above my biggest problem with islam as practiced is its incompatibility with western values. While a small fraction of islam's adherents are violent jihadists a much larger, and significant, faction do not have a problem with the violent jihadists, or at least see their point. You saw it clearly after the Hedbo attacks, many prominent muslims spoke out against the violence. However, their condemnation was always coupled with a "but", but you have to understand, muslims find these caricatures of Muhammad to be deeply offensive. The implication being that the violence was provoked, to which I loudly claim bullshit.

Lastly, I never cease to be amazed, and slightly amused, by the defense of islam by feminists. You won't find a more misogynistic world view anywhere on the planet than within islam as currently practiced. At least orthodox judaism makes both men and women wear horribly uncomfortable clothing.


Given all of the above one should expect things to get worse in Europe, not better.

[Belsnickel]

(02-17-2017, 10:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What has yet to be mentioned, and often is in discussions of islam, is that it's not just a religion by design. It is also a system of government as laid out in both the koran and the hadith (yes, I know the hadith is more apocryphal,although IMO everything about monotheism is). It is unique among the monotheisms in that it is not just a spiritual guide, it is a guide to governance as well. It is also, at this point an time, the most illiberal and hard line of all the world's religions and this is beyond dispute. It also has a stated inherent goal to convert the entire world to its teachings.

Even given the above my biggest problem with islam as practiced is its incompatibility with western values. While a small fraction of islam's adherents are violent jihadists a much larger, and significant, faction do not have a problem with the violent jihadists, or at least see their point. You saw it clearly after the Hedbo attacks, many prominent muslims spoke out against the violence. However, their condemnation was always coupled with a "but", but you have to understand, muslims find these caricatures of Muhammad to be deeply offensive. The implication being that the violence was provoked, to which I loudly claim bullshit.

Lastly, I never cease to be amazed, and slightly amused, by the defense of islam by feminists. You won't find a more misogynistic world view anywhere on the planet than within islam as currently practiced. At least orthodox judaism makes both men and women wear horribly uncomfortable clothing.


Given all of the above one should expect things to get worse in Europe, not better.

For the part in bold, no, it's not unique. Judaism has the same thing. The Mitzvot were a guide to governance.

As to the rest, I think my biggest issue with Islam is that it is going in reverse. Islam was progressing for a long time. What we saw happen was the Salafist movement take hold. Salafism has become what people associated with Islam today because of Saudi Arabia's influence over the entire Middle East. Look at Iran and the pictures you see of before the revolution and today. Salafism was the bucking against western colonialism among Sunnis, and that influence from Saudi Arabia caused what we see today in Iran with their Shi'ia population.

Islam has been going backwards in the middle east for over two centuries, and that message has been spreading outward.

[hollodero]

I just came across Trump claiming "You look at what's happening in Germany, you look at what's happening last night in Sweden"

-- I just want to make clear that nothing in particular happened said night in Sweden.

[Dill]

(02-15-2017, 04:11 PM)hollodero Wrote: That is certainly true, although one needs to be careful there. Applying the same proportionality, one could with the same right claim Belgians are prone to child molesting or Austrians are strongly suspicious to lock their daughters in cellars and have a bunch of kids with them.

That is why I tend to shun Austrians.

I mean, I sure they don't ALL do that. But how do you know which ones are which?

[Dill]

(02-17-2017, 11:29 AM)toBelsnickel Wrote: For the part in bold, no, it's not unique. Judaism has the same thing. The Mitzvot were a guide to governance.

As to the rest, I think my biggest issue with Islam is that it is going in reverse. Islam was progressing for a long time. What we saw happen was the Salafist movement take hold. Salafism has become what people associated with Islam today because of Saudi Arabia's influence over the entire Middle East. Look at Iran and the pictures you see of before the revolution and today. Salafism was the bucking against western colonialism among Sunnis, and that influence from Saudi Arabia caused what we see today in Iran with their Shi'ia population.

Islam has been going backwards in the middle east for over two centuries, and that message has been spreading outward.

I don't think Islam has been going "backwards" for two centuries.

But as you point out, Saudi Wahabism/Salafism is the biggest ideological impetus to the current Jihadist movement--though certainly not the only cause.  Colonialism, the foundation of Israel, and bad rulers (Saddam, Mubarak, and Assad) were critical factors and broken states are now the "petri dishes" in which the culture grows outside of SA.  It has a special attraction in places where security has broken down, then been reconstituted under religious authority..

That is why I think it a misstep to always be talking about what kind of religion ISLAM is, as if it has always been what we see now in the Syrian/Nigerian/Yemeni outback. 

20 years ago, hardly any women in Cairo wore the Hijab; now even "progressive" university students do, almost 100%. 
Saying "it's because ISLAM is this or that" doesn't explain this change. Tracing Wahabist (Saudi) funding of Salafism begins to.

[hollodero]

(02-19-2017, 05:13 PM)Dill Wrote: That is why I tend to shun Austrians.

I mean, I sure they don't ALL do that. But how do you know which ones are which?

Yeah well you really can't. 
When there are a bunch you can go with "done it wants it hates it done it done it hates it wants it." That's what we do.

But better avoid us completely and go for the Austrian ban already. Your president shouted at our prime minister and Arnie doesn't keep his mouth shut anyway, and there's that daughter in the cellar thing too. Sure, we keep that one in the family at least, but still.

[Belsnickel]

(02-19-2017, 05:37 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think Islam has been going "backwards" for two centuries.

But as you point out, Saudi Wahabism/Salafism is the biggest ideological impetus to the current Jihadist movement--though certainly not the only cause.  Colonialism, the foundation of Israel, and bad rulers (Saddam, Mubarak, and Assad) were critical factors and broken states are now the "petri dishes" in which the culture grows outside of SA.  It has a special attraction in places where security has broken down, then been reconstituted under religious authority..

That is why I think it a misstep to always be talking about what kind of religion ISLAM is, as if it has always been what we see now in the Syrian/Nigerian/Yemeni outback. 

20 years ago, hardly any women in Cairo wore the Hijab; now even "progressive" university students do, almost 100%. 
Saying "it's because ISLAM is this or that" doesn't explain this change. Tracing Wahabist (Saudi) funding of Salafism begins to.

The going backwards for two centuries is in reference to the time of founding for Salafism. Since then, we have seen the spread of that influence grow and a regression of the societies in which it has spread.

As for the reasons, colonialism is really the reason for all of it, but people don't like to hear that. Salafism/Wahabism was founded as a response to western colonialism, the creation of Israel was a result of western colonialism, the terrible rulers made their bones decrying, you guessed it, western colonialism.

Nobody wants to hear it, but Europe and later the US can have a direct line drawn to them from every cause of Islamic extremism.

[hollodero]

(02-19-2017, 07:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: As for the reasons, colonialism is really the reason for all of it, but people don't like to hear that. Salafism/Wahabism was founded as a response to western colonialism

Regarding Wahabism I don't think that is true. That's 18th century stuff.

(02-19-2017, 07:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Nobody wants to hear it, but Europe and later the US can have a direct line drawn to them from every cause of Islamic extremism.

That I think is true.

[Belsnickel]

(02-19-2017, 07:20 PM)hollodero Wrote: Regarding Wahabism I don't think that is true. That's 18th century stuff.

Indeed, which is when European imperialism/colonialism began its influence in the middle east.

[hollodero]

(02-19-2017, 07:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Indeed, which is when European imperialism/colonialism began its influence in the middle east.

Well...
...maybe it plays a part on some level. But directly, the Saud clan used Wahabism to ideologically fire up the uniting of the peninsula around 1800, and they did so by fighting other non-Wahabistic Arab tribes. There were no European colonialists there at the time, and why would they, there was only Mekka and a lot of sand. Sure there were Ottomans, but only on paper, because, well, sand.
Wahhabism was first introduced around 1740. No Europeans occupying oasis back then, too. The enemy were other muslim tribes/clans.

But whatever, it isn't really important.

[Dill]

(02-19-2017, 07:20 PM)hollodero Wrote: Regarding Wahabism I don't think that is true. That's 18th century stuff.

It was 18th century stuff. Now it is 21st century. 

Since the '70s Saudi money has flowed to Muslim groups espousing Wahabist principles across the Middle-East and North Africa. They have had great influence in Egypt, Iraq, and Pakistan, for example.

In combination with other forces (In Egypt, Mubarak) it has done much to roll back the Cosmopolitan Islam of the post-war years. That is one of the main reasons why so many Muslim countries have become more conservative over the last 40 years.

[Dill]

(02-19-2017, 07:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The going backwards for two centuries is in reference to the time of founding for Salafism. Since then, we have seen the spread of that influence grow and a regression of the societies in which it has spread.

As for the reasons, colonialism is really the reason for all of it, but people don't like to hear that. Salafism/Wahabism was founded as a response to western colonialism, the creation of Israel was a result of western colonialism, the terrible rulers made their bones decrying, you guessed it, western colonialism.

Nobody wants to hear it, but Europe and later the US can have a direct line drawn to them from every cause of Islamic extremism.

I am pretty much in agreement with this. There are no single causes, but colonialism, the founding of Israel, and regime change work together to produce the conditions conducive to Salafism.

[hollodero]

(02-20-2017, 04:10 PM)Dill Wrote: It was 18th century stuff. Now it is 21st century. 

Since the '70s Saudi money has flowed to Muslim groups espousing Wahabist principles across the Middle-East and North Africa. They have had great influence in Egypt, Iraq, and Pakistan, for example.

In combination with other forces (In Egypt, Mubarak) it has done much to roll back the Cosmopolitan Islam of the post-war years. That is one of the main reasons why so many Muslim countries have become more conservative over the last 40 years.

No no I did not want to deny that in any way. I merely referred to the "founding" aspect and expressed my view that the roots of wahabism don't primarily lie in a refusal of European colonialism. Just talking about the founding, not about the current situation.

[Dill]

(02-19-2017, 07:39 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well...
...maybe it plays a part on some level. But directly, the Saud clan used Wahabism to ideologically fire up the uniting of the peninsula around 1800, and they did so by fighting other non-Wahabistic Arab tribes. There were no European colonialists there at the time, and why would they, there was only Mekka and a lot of sand. Sure there were Ottomans, but only on paper, because, well, sand.
Wahhabism was first introduced around 1740. No Europeans occupying oasis back then, too. The enemy were other muslim tribes/clans.

But whatever, it isn't really important.

I don't think Bels meant Wahabism was founded in response to colonialism.  It was more like the Calvinist/Lutheran response to "excesses" of Catholicism--an effort to purify and return to simple origins, a critique of existing (especially Cosmopolitan) Ottoman and Egyptian Islam, and Shia, which was making inroads in Bahrain and the area we now call southern Iraq.

The point is that Saudi money and the breakdown of alternatives have created fertile ground for its spread. The inability of some Middle-Eastern countries to control their own destiny, having been run by Europeans (forcing European laws and customs upon them) or European backed leaders or bad Arab leaders purveying Western-style political ideologies (Ba'athism) has made a "pure" conservative "untainted" Islam seem the remedy.  E.g., The Saudis have pumped millions into Egypt in support of Wahabist Imams and Mosques and organizations, including the more conservative organizations flying under the "Mulslim Brotherhood" umbrella.

So ironically, it is this supposed foundation outside western influence, its desert purity and simplicity, which make it the antidote to "tainted" cosmopolitan Islam. That is why, as I mentioned, almost no women in Cairo wore the Hijab in the 1980, whereas now it is rare to see a woman without one. There is a low intensity social war going on in many Arab Muslim countries generated by this rising attraction to Wahabism. Every country is different though.  Critical, I think, disruption created by dispossession and war (Gaza, Southern Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan), or smothering political oppression (Tunisia, Egypt).  Wahabism has much less influence in Jordan, where many women don't wear the hijab.

This "purity" also makes it attractive to confused westerners who need both internal (personality) and external structure in their lives.

PS sorry Hollo. I wrote this before I saw your post #33.

[hollodero]

(02-20-2017, 04:33 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think Bels meant Wahabism was founded in response to colonialism.  It was more like the Calvinist/Lutheran response to "excesses" of Catholicism--an effort to purify and return to simple origins, a critique of existing (especially Cosmopolitan) Ottoman and Egyptian Islam, and Shia, which was making inroads in Bahrain and the area we now call southern Iraq.

The point is that Saudi money and the breakdown of alternatives have created fertile ground for its spread. The inability of some Middle-Eastern countries to control their own destiny, having been run by Europeans (forcing European laws and customs upon them) or European backed leaders or bad Arab leaders purveying Western-style political ideologies (Ba'athism) has made a "pure" conservative "untainted" Islam seem the remedy.  E.g., The Saudis have pumped millions into Egypt in support of Wahabist Imams and Mosques and organizations, including the more conservative organizations flying under the "Mulslim Brotherhood" umbrella.

So ironically, it is this supposed foundation outside western influence, its desert purity and simplicity, which make it the antidote to "tainted" cosmopolitan Islam. That is why, as I mentioned, almost no women in Cairo wore the Hijab in the 1980, whereas now it is rare to see a woman without one. There is a low intensity social war going on in many Arab Muslim countries generated by this rising attraction to Wahabism. Every country is different though.  Critical, I think, disruption created by dispossession and war (Gaza, Southern Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan), or smothering political oppression (Tunisia, Egypt).  Wahabism has much less influence in Jordan, where many women don't wear the hijab.

This "purity" also makes it attractive to confused westerners who need both internal (personality) and external structure in their lives.

PS sorry Hollo. I wrote this before I saw your post #33.

I agree with most parts. Wahabism was still more of a sect that legitimized a war to unite the peninsula. Islam, compared to Christianity, was always more political ideology and not just core belief alone.
I see a "problem" if you will in the fact Islam as a whole never had an Enlightenment/secularisation period, and I don't entirely blame Europe or the US for that. To some part, sure.

A detail I disagree on, Jordan is not wahabistic because it's a hashemite state, the hashemites being the enemies of the Saud clan in the younger Arab history. They were the ones that got kicked ouf of Mekka by wahabist Sauds, hence historically no big fans there.

The rest is fine with me. 

[Dill]

(02-20-2017, 06:47 PM)hollodero Wrote: I agree with most parts. Wahabism was still more of a sect that legitimized a war to unite the peninsula. Islam, compared to Christianity, was always more political ideology and not just core belief alone.
I see a "problem" if you will in the fact Islam as a whole never had an Enlightenment/secularisation period, and I don't entirely blame Europe or the US for that. To some part, sure.

A detail I disagree on, Jordan is not wahabistic because it's a hashemite state, the hashemites being the enemies of the Saud clan in the younger Arab history. They were the ones that got kicked ouf of Mekka by wahabist Sauds, hence historically no big fans there.

The rest is fine with me. 

Well I take your point about the Hashemite rulers. I had not considered that angle. But I don't think that can be a major factor--though perhaps a factor--in hindering the spread of Wahabism. Iraq was Hashemite, yet turned out to be very susceptible to Wahabism or Wahabist-inflected politics--but after the US invasion.  I think the reason Jordan is less susceptible at the moment is simply because there is less political unrest and less insecurity. Also, there is still very much the sense that Jordan is its own country, not controlled by Western interests.

I agree with you about the Enlightenment/secularization problem, which is why I say we don't find the explanation of contemporary Islamist behavior Bill-Maher-style by looking at the Koran or Hadith or whatever text is proffered as the "clue."

Our Enlightenment was in great part a result of the collective European exhaustion with religious wars (80 years war, 30 years war, English Civil War) which promised little more than the utter destruction of all sides, though in the U.S. at least the Enlightenment is often represented as the result of philosophers persuading people to be nicer and, paradoxically, people hewing more closely to the message of Jesus.

That revisionist history may be one reason why people enjoy comparing religious texts to "prove" that Islam is somehow essentially different from Christianity when it comes to lethal, missionary conquest. They believe the US and Europe became tolerant because Christianity directly taught tolerance, rather than (as is in fact the case) because it did not.



 

[hollodero]

(02-21-2017, 12:35 PM)Dill Wrote: Well I take your point about the Hashemite rulers. I had not considered that angle. But I don't think that can be a major factor--though perhaps a factor--in hindering the spread of Wahabism. Iraq was Hashemite, yet turned out to be very susceptible to Wahabism or Wahabist-inflected politics--but after the US invasion.

Well, they were Baath before in Iraq, not so much hashemite any more. And they have a large shiite population.

(02-21-2017, 12:35 PM)Dill Wrote:   I think the reason Jordan is less susceptible at the moment is simply because there is less political unrest and less insecurity. Also, there is still very much the sense that Jordan is its own country, not controlled by Western interests.

Agreed. That might be the way bigger factor.

(02-21-2017, 12:35 PM)Dill Wrote: I agree with you about the Enlightenment/secularization problem, which is why I say we don't find the explanation of contemporary Islamist behavior Bill-Maher-style by looking at the Koran or Hadith or whatever text is proffered as the "clue."

Our Enlightenment was in great part a result of the collective European exhaustion with religious wars (80 years war, 30 years war, English Civil War) which promised little more than the utter destruction of all sides, though in the U.S. at least the Enlightenment is often represented as the result of philosophers persuading people to be nicer and, paradoxically, people hewing more closely to the message of Jesus.

I think the first explanation is more accurate.
We Europeans also are not often that sure that you even had an Enlightenment period... :) The US sure is way more dominated by Christianity, every presidential candidate has to be deeply filled with Jesus and such, which is one of the things we perceive as very strange.
Even Trump. I remember him saying that he gets audited so much because of his being so deeply religious. Or something among these lines.

-- Bill Maher, I don't know. I'm not an expert on Bill Maher, but his stances often take it one step too far for me.
(I liked his recent piece about republicans, though.)

(02-21-2017, 12:35 PM)Dill Wrote: That revisionist history may be one reason why people enjoy comparing religious texts to "prove" that Islam is somehow essentially different from Christianity when it comes to lethal, missionary conquest. They believe the US and Europe became tolerant because Christianity directly taught tolerance, rather than (as is in fact the case) because it did not.

Well, it is a bit different, compared to the new testament at least. The old one, that one is way more grim than Koran is (I believe). But there are as many Koran interpretations as there are Islamic splinter groups, it's hard to standardize.

[Dill]

(02-21-2017, 01:10 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, it is a bit different, compared to the new testament at least. The old one, that one is way more grim than Koran is (I believe). But there are as many Koran interpretations as there are Islamic splinter groups, it's hard to standardize.

Thanks for the reminder about Baathist Iraq. A pertinent distinction from Jordan. I recall, though, that after the Gulf War, Saddam began to incorporate more religious appeals and framing of political goals. Not full-fledged Wahabism/Salafism though.

The central problem with all the "peoples of the book," the one thing that seems to be at the root of that drive to exterminate the opposition whenever it appears, is that commandment "You shall have no other gods before you." When that one gets prioritized, the holy war is on! Brought capital punishment down on Israelites who violated it.

ALLOWING other gods to exist and be tolerantly worshiped risked national destruction. So you had to rub that out harshly and permanently.