Pants-of-dog wrote:This seems like observer bias.
The reason we can only think of Muslim majority countries with problems is because the only ones in the media, and therefore brought to our attention, are the ones with problems.
No one thinks about or discusses why Djibouti is peaceful. Or why Gambia has no religious issues but only those associated with colonialism and poverty, despite a large Muslim population.
It is also reductionist to assume that all these countries have the same problems for the same reasons. For example, Mauritania has problems becuase of racism and slavery, and the fact that both races and both sides of the slave issue are Muslims has nothing to do with it. Meanwhile, you seem to be ignoring colonialism, imperialism, their modern counterparts, poverty, climate change, and a whole host of other potential causes for conflict and simpky assuming that Islam is the cause.
Not really. A lot of places where Muslims are in conflict with other cultures doesn't get much if any attention on Western media. Strife in eastern Indonesia and Sarawak, Southern Thailand, Western China, through out India, Malaysia, and so on. Occasionally we hear about it, such as in Burma at present, though that is likely due to the high profile of Ann Suu Kai in the West. The obvious media bias is reporting such conflict when Western interests are involved rather than exaggerating reporting on Muslim violence.
There are a few peaceful Muslim nations. Oman is a good example, but they aren't either Shia nor Sunni. Brunei was peaceful until recently though there are reports that the Muslim insurgents in the Phillipines has been getting support from them. So there are a few smaller Sultanates that are benignly governed. Curiously we often find a stable monarchy in charge of the exceptions. However a few exceptions don't discount the many which make the rule.
It is simply the case that most major nations are fighting against Muslim insurgents at present. China, Russia, USA, India, Europe, various African and Asian countries. The only nations which aren't are not exposed to Muslim populations. We must ask why is this the case.
Colonial era territorial legacies? Then why Western China and Southern Thailand. Neither was colonised by Europeans. What of the Chinese and India diaspora that Europeans left behind in SE Asia and the Pacific? Why aren't they behaving the same way and violently attacking the cultural groups next to them?
Furthermore, you didn't address the issue of the destruction of ancient Buddhist statues in Afghanistan, or the wanton destruction of Roman ruins in Palmyra and attacks on Hindu temples in Malaya. Why all these efforts to destroy icons of other cultures?
The explanations you offer are inadequate. We are left with the remaining explanation that it must have something to do with the system of belief.
So it is that Islam, in it's strictest form, replaces the original culture of converts. Idols are sacrilegious and there is a reward in the afterlife for destroying the. Muslims are supposed to be on top and must struggle to be the dominant group. And so on. Islam is a expansionist, revolutionary and totalitarian ideology. In a way it is beautiful in it's efficiency, much like a spider can be admired as a skilled creature of prey. Islam replaces all other cultural traditions with it's own set of universalist beliefs. It is a total system of belief, a total way of life.
But then there is this thing known as cultural Islam. Most countries with long standing a Muslim history and those that were converted without too much violence, retained their pre-Islamic traditions. Rural Indonesia Islam, central Asian Islam, being examples. Sufi mysticism (gnostic influence), old Islamic rationalism (Hellenic influence) are other examples. This is something valued by most ordinary Muslims and they are proud of their diverse traditions.
Yet it is threaten by strict Islam as much as an non-Muslim culture. Reform and revival in Islam is about throwing out innovation and returning to the 'rightly guided path' set by the Prophet and his companions as related by traditions of scholars. So there is a tendency to return to a strict set of beliefs. Many ordinary Muslims are quite fearful of strict Muslims, the later holding great moral authority over all believers and have means of punishing transgressions.
Simply put, Islam is intolerant of other beliefs and cultures. It can not allow alternatives and thus inevitably come into conflict with other systems of belief when encountered.
To be fair to a Muslims, Islam is not the only universalist system of belief, which destroys other cultures it comes in contact with. Contemporary Western liberalism, known as political correctness by it's victims in the West, is of the same nature. It is totalitarian and intrudes into all aspects of life, it cannot accept alternative and competing beliefs, it destroys traditional culture. It's believers even destroy icons which don't conform to that system of belief. Like Islam, the believers claim to be peaceful yet attack those who refuse to accept the 'truth' or dare to speak on rival ideas. And of course, many Westerners, like ordinary Muslims in relation to strict Muslims, fear the politically correct white ppl, the later holding great moral authority over other Westerners and have means of punishing transgressions.
Simply put contemporary Western liberalism is intolerant of other beliefs and cultures. It cannot allow alternatives and inevitably comes into conflict with other systems of belief when encountered.
So let's not be xenophobic. Western liberalism/universalism and the open society (which is remarkably authoritarian in practice, in stark contrast to Popper's vision) are clearly every bit as much of a threat to the diverse cultures of the world as is strict Islamic beliefs.
Finally, one can now see why @noir keeps drawing attention to common ground between PC Europeans and radical Muslims. They do have something in common.
- By Tainari88
- By Rancid
- By late