When it was. It's an interesting history just why it then went into the backwardness and only was abruptly awakened by Napoleon invading Egypt. But then it was too late and the Ottoman Empire was "the sick man of Europe". — ssu
They are not a nation, but many (especially the fundamentalists) see themselves as one world-wide Muslim community or ummah.
And they see Westerners exactly as we see them, i.e., as the "bad guys".
Additionally, though most Muslims are not terrorists, they do agree with Islamic Law. And the problem with Islamic Law is that it tends to become more and more oppressive in addition to encouraging extremism.
The terrorists' reasoning is that if 75% of Muslims want Sharia Law, then it is right for them to fight the 25% that do not. And this goes for non-Muslim countries too. If Muslims are a minority, this means that Islam is being "suppressed" and this situation needs to be redressed by creating a Muslim majority.
India is a good illustration. The Muslim minority in British India demanded their own state. In 1947, they got Pakistan and Bangladesh. But some Muslims chose to stay behind in India and now the fundamentalists among them (and those of Pakistan) demand that they be liberated from infidel "oppression".
As fundamentalism is popular with the uneducated masses (and even some of the educated classes), politicians tend to encourage it for their own agenda, and one wave of fundamentalism is followed by a more radical one, just as the Mujahedin were followed by the Taliban and the Taliban by al-Qaeda .... — Apollodorus
It is futile to attack something that is not a centralized power, but like an invasive species, impossible to get rid of and spreading everywhere. — Athena
And Pakistan is still a member of the British Commonwealth which has exactly the same map as the British Empire: — Apollodorus
I agree with this.But it is wrong to assume that the British have no influence. It's just that they prefer to operate in a more behind-the-scenes way than the French. — Apollodorus
The US doesn't attack countries with known nuclear weapons. It attacks only the one's with alleged nuclear weapons.From that point, things got more and more lethal. US Deputy State Secretary Richard Armitage did tell the Pakistanis after 9/11 in 2001 that the US would bomb them back to the Stone Age if they didn't sort out the terrorists. But the Pakistanis have carried on playing their usual double game, and the West got fooled one more time. — Apollodorus
Oh, I so want to argue against what you said just for the fun of it and I love your ending statement that clarifies we are playing with all these ideas is just fun. :love:
What if we could bring Islam and Christianity together? I know that is an insane idea considering neither religion can avoid division and fighting against each other, so there is not one Christianity or one Islam. And some of us are strongly opposed to both religions, but how can we be philosophical about all this and work on reasoning for peace? Instead of attempting to have peace through power? Ah, is this thread about Afghanistan or patriarchy versus matriarchy, and do we want to bring an end to rape culture, as in raping the earth as we rape each other? :lol:
I think my comment about communism was the bait switch. The threatening enemy was communism until the USSR fell, so we had to have a new enemy to do exactly what the US stood against from its very beginning, that is maintain its WWII military might and fight for global control. The new enemy became terrorists but that is very hard to defend and use to justify our military presence around the world. Who are the terrorist? They are not a nation and wars are against nations, not a handful of nuts cases. Oh, the terrorists are Muslims. You know those people who do not know God and follow his commandments and who are jealous of the US because God blesses the US and not them. Right there, that is proof of who God favors and it is the will of God that we control the resources of the world. But everyone can have religious freedom so we should not attack people for how they understand and worship God. Obviously, religious freedom makes us superior to Muslims and their notion of Shia law is threatening to us. cockco, cuckoo Can we call that reasoning? What is really happening? Is there are a philosophy that explains this insanity? — Athena
There may not be a global center for the whole Muslim ummah, but there are centers of radicalism that can be tackled if there is a political will to do so. And you can take counter-measures against the governments that support them.
Seeing that Muslims demand Islamic states for themselves, perhaps the solution would be for non-Muslims to demand their own states? China and India seem to already be doing this.
Otherwise, I think the conflict is bound to continue until one side defeats the other .... — Apollodorus
WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump do not agree on much, but Saudi Arabia may be an exception. She has deplored Saudi Arabia’s support for “radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path towards extremism.” He has called the Saudis “the world’s biggest funders of terrorism.” — Scott Shane
I don't wish to make the issue a game to be played without care or concern; if anyone insists its a game, so be it, but the consequences won't be a laughing matter. That's that.
There are two ways we can manage this. Either attempt some sorta unification of religions, politics, ideologies, etc. or just learn to accept our differences and agree to coexist peacefully i.e. stamp out diversity or embrace it. Which path the world chooses will decide the future of humanity. — TheMadFool
I don't know what can be done about this Christian and Muslim fundamentalism but we can not correct the problem if we do not properly identify it. — Athena
Well, the Taliban aren't going to be just left with their own ideas. The neighboring countries and the Great Powers, even if not enthusiastically, will try to influence what will happen in Afghanistan. Hence they won't be left alone I think.
For example Vietnam didn't have it peaceful after the South collapsed and the country was unified. Then they had a border war with China and then intervened and overthrew the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. Only afterwards it's been rather peaceful in that area of the World. even if South-East Asia has it's fair share of insurgents lurking in the jungles. — ssu
Might the Taliban realize they bit off more than they can chew? — Athena
I don't know how to parse your recommendations. Some of them do sound like what a philosopher might say but I'm not certain whether it'll work or not. Are there any records of historical precedents? I mean that in the middle east and some mulsim southeast asian nations at least, rich philosophical traditions have been literally wiped off the face of the earth by Islam but the reverse has never happened. I'm doubtful that your well-meaning suggestions to improve the situation in Afghanistan will bear fruit.
Morever, the crux of the problem is this: The Taliban is about Islam, not Afghanistan. The west, on other hand, despite the possibility that it's just lip service, want Afghans to think hard and feel deeply about Afghanistan. That's all I have to say. — TheMadFool
They might indeed. But it may equally be a cynical ploy to get the world to recognize their government and start pouring billions in aid into the coffers of their Islamic Emirate. — Apollodorus
Thank you, thank you. The answer to your question is yes. But until we share the same source of information I don't think anyone will believe me. At least over ten years of trying to convence people of the importance of education, have not gotten good results.
My source of information is several books on the history of education. I am sure many people in the forum would love these books, but you will not find them in a regular book store. However these books can be found on line- Textbook in the History of Education by Paul Monroe 1910 and A History of Education by James Mulhern. Then I have old gradeschool text books and other books about education. Or we can come to the same information through an explanation of Liberal Education coming out of the Age of Reason and what scientific thinking has to do with what makes the West different from the East. A difference that was the foundation of war between the Greeks and Persians and has never been resolved. Your last statement is exactly right. — Athena
A recent historian of philosophy, Anthony Gottlieb, describes its (religion's) impact in terms of the tale of Sleeping Beauty. "Having pricked its finger on Christian theology, philosophy fell asleep for about a thousand years until awakened by the kiss of Descartes" — Anthony Kenny (An Illustrated Brief History Of Western Philosophy)
This is exactly the point that I have been trying to make :smile:
Of course fundamentalism, of any denomination, should be opposed. The question is, what can be done about it?
As I said, it is essential to understand how empires operate in order to understand how we got to this point. However, this is only the first step. The second step, which is equally important, is to understand the opponent.
For starters, we must avoid kidding ourselves and romanticizing Islam. The 7th century Arab is an outsider to what we call civilization, i.e., the urban civilization of Greece, Rome and Persia. He is at home in the Arabian desert whose barren expanse is only interrupted by scattered oases. But he is not content in the desert. For he has seen the unparalleled wealth and opulence of Christian Syria when traveling to the seasonal market at Damascus and the rich merchandise carried by the returning caravans which he and his comrades in arms have often raided. He has also heard of Constantinople, the “Great City of the Romans” (Rūmiyyat al-Kubra) “nothing like which was ever built, neither before nor after”.
Presumably, getting their hands on the gold and silver of Greece and Persia, and enslaving their populations, especially the women, was one of the motivations behind the Arab invasions. But the religious aspect of it should not be neglected.
Islam means submission to the will of God as supposedly revealed in the Koran.
Submission means Peace, non-submission means War or struggle between the forces of submission and the forces of rebellion.
Islamic Law (Sharia) divides the world into (1) areas of Peace or Islam, called the “House of Islam”, Dar al-Islam, where Islamic Law prevails, and (2) areas of War or Struggle, called the “House of War”, Dar al-Harb, where non-Islamic Law prevails.
The concepts of “House of Islam” and “House of War” do not appear to occur either in the Koran or in oral Hadith tradition. However, they were introduced by Muslim law-makers during the Muslim conquests and are part of Islamic Law.
Divisions of the world in Islam - Wikipedia
Presumably, Muslims who accept Islamic Law, also accept the division of the world into these two antagonistic camps, in which case it is not difficult to see why Muslim extremists see the existence of territories that are not subject to Islamic Law as a provocation and invitation, indeed obligation, to wage holy war or jihad against the “infidels.”
What compounds the problem is the Muslim belief that Islam was the original true religion that has been distorted by Jews and Christians whose current scriptures teach falsehoods and lead believers astray.
Clearly, the issue is more complex than it may seem.
So, can Islam be reformed? On the available evidence, I tend to doubt it. If we think about it, Christianity emerged within the evolved culture of Greece and Rome. In contrast, Islam had no comparable cultural background. It moderated itself for tactical reasons and through contact with other cultures. But it never reformed itself.
When external pressures force it to do so, Islam will stay within a certain range of moderation. But left on its own, its own inner logic will cause it to return to its unreformed and unmoderated roots.
This may be seen from the example of Pakistan. So long as it was part of British India, surrounded by Hindus, and dominated by European culture, it moderated itself for reasons of self-preservation. After Independence, when its main point of outside contact was Mecca in ultra-fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, it became more and more radical.
Education seems to be part of the problem. When you have millions of Muslim villagers with little or no education except what they are told by radical mullahs, then the outcome is entirely predictable. And, as we can see, there is a growing movement of opposition against Western education.
The name of the Islamist extremist organization "Boko Haram" (active in Niger and other African countries) literally means "Western education is forbidden" or "(Western) Book Forbidden," the only permitted book being the Koran. — Apollodorus
I see Christianity as just as good or bad as Islam. — Athena
You are probably right in a sense. However, we shouldn't ignore the differences.
For example:
1. Christianity spread through persuasion, Islam spread through invasion and conquest.
2. There are very few (if any) Christian fundamentalist governments in the world, but many Muslim fundamentalist ones.
3. There are very few (if any) Christian terror organizations, but many Muslim ones.
4. Women are more likely to be oppressed and discriminated against in Muslim than in Christian countries, etc.
I think, ultimately, what matters is not which religion is theoretically "better", but which of them shows more respect for freedom, democracy, and human rights.
Of course some may argue that the US President is "just as good or as bad" as the head of the Taliban, but I think this is debatable. — Apollodorus
And none of us had equal rights for that long. We sure can not applaud Christianity for our equal rights gains and protection from sexual predators because Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are basically the same patriarchial religion.The 15 states that did not ratify the Equal Rights Amendment before the 1982 deadline were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia. — ERA
"I think, ultimately, what matters is not which religion is theoretically "better", but which of them shows more respect for freedom, democracy, and human rights." Yes, but that is what we gained through philosophy and conditions that lead to women having liberty, it is not because of religious differences. And can we keep in mind, at one time Isam was far more advanced than Christian Europe, and can we focus on why that was so? I think it is a mistake to think Christianity is better for democracy than Islam. If it had been for the renaissance and philosophy, we would not be a democracy and we would have protected freedom of speech and would not have liberty. Our failure to understand that and what it means to defend democracy in the classroom has us in deep trouble right. — Athena
True about Renaissance and philosophy. Philosophy was locked up in dogma until that point, for the most part. — schopenhauer1
Are you sure Christianity was not spread by the sword? We might have read different accounts of history? What were the steps of persuasion used? How about economic warfare? — Athena
Point two, yes, many countries have not modernized as the West did following the renaissance in Europe. And thanks to this discussion, I have been pondering how anyone could write a history book for the East that made them think democracy is their inheritance from the Greeks and Rome? — Athena
Point three, would you call the KKK a terrorist organization? How about the Nazis? — Athena
And none of us had equal rights for that long. We sure can not applaud Christianity for our equal rights gains and protection from sexual predators because Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are basically the same patriarchial religion. — Athena
And can we keep in mind, at one time Isam was far more advanced than Christian Europe, and can we focus on why that was so? I think it is a mistake to think Christianity is better for democracy than Islam. If it had been for the renaissance and philosophy, we would not be a democracy and we would have protected freedom of speech and would not have liberty. Our failure to understand that and what it means to defend democracy in the classroom has us in deep trouble right. — Athena
Our president in the US was born a nation that began with liberal/classical education and had education to teach citizenship and defend democracy. We stopped that in 1958 and left moral training to the church. That was a huge mistake. — Athena
One more thing Kennedy and Biden were/are Catholic and that means universalism. Most US Presidents are Protestant and that means nationalism like the Christian Republic of Germany we defeated in two world wars and now resemble in many ways. — Athena
Absolutely sure. Christianity started as a peaceful movement within the Roman Empire and spread peacefully and gradually through its teachings. — Apollodorus
We returned to an explanation of nature being the cause, instead of everything being the will of a God. This radically changed the West and man's understanding of his position in the world, throwing the West into progressive motion and Islam into decline. — Athena
Sure. But (1) KKK and neo-Nazis are racist, not religious fundamentalist, (2) they are not supported by Western governments, or indeed, by the Western public, and (3) they do not attack Muslim countries. — Apollodorus
Aristotelianism in Islamic philosophy
In Arabic, Aristotle was referred to by name as Aristutalis or, more frequently, Aristu, although when quoted he was often referred to by a sobriquet such as 'the wise man'. Aristotle was also generally known as the First Teacher. Following the initial reception of Hellenistic texts into Islamic thought in al-Kindi's time, al-Farabi rediscovered a 'purer' version in the tenth century. In an allusion to his dependence on Aristotle, al-Farabi was called the Second Teacher. Ibn Rushd, known in the West as Averroes, was the last great Arabophone commentator on Aristotle, writing numerous treatises on his works. A careful examination of the Aristotelian works received by the Arabs indicates they were generally aware of the true Aristotle. Later, transmission of these works to Christian Europe allowed Aristotelianism to flourish in the scholastic period.
We should not take at face value the Islamic philosophers' claims that they were simply following Aristotle. The convention in Islamic philosophy is to state that one is repeating the wisdom of the past, thus covering over such originality as may exist. There was a tendency among Islamic philosophers to cite Aristotle as an authority in order to validate their own claims and ideas. — Muslim Philosophy
I don't think complicated historical events can be broken down into monolithic stages like this. Metaphysical mutations don't seem like good explanations for historical events, IMO. The material basis (like advancements in trade technology) is what drives events; ideological changes are an effect, not the cause. It doesn't make any sense to me that one region of the planet progressed simply because the inhabitants started believing in something different. It just seems more like mythology than history. — darthbarracuda
Some say the Mongolian invasion contributed to the downfall of the Golden Age of Islam, especially the sack of Baghdad in 1258 and the destruction of the library. It was also an internal movement to turn away from it it earlier by people like Al-Ghazali. — schopenhauer1
Al-Ghazâlî (c.1056–1111) was one of the most prominent and influential philosophers, theologians, jurists, and mystics of Sunni Islam. He was active at a time when Sunni theology had just passed through its consolidation and entered a period of intense challenges from Shiite Ismâ’îlite theology and the Arabic tradition of Aristotelian philosophy (falsafa). Al-Ghazâlî understood the importance of falsafa and developed a complex response that rejected and condemned some of its teachings, while it also allowed him to accept and apply others. Al-Ghazâlî’s critique of twenty positions of falsafa in his Incoherence of the Philosophers (Tahâfut al-falâsifa) is a significant landmark in the history of philosophy as it advances the nominalist critique of Aristotelian science developed later in 14th century Europe. On the Arabic and Muslim side al-Ghazâlî’s acceptance of demonstration (apodeixis) led to a much more refined and precise discourse on epistemology and a flowering of Aristotelian logics and metaphysics. — Stanford
Houellebecq coined it. I think it is supposed to refer to a large shift in the way a civilization views themselves and the world. — darthbarracuda
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.