Santa V God

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Not to worry. The spirit of love came through.

Ohh good, that makes me happy At least you know what I say comes from a real person, and not the invisible man


tao

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Ohh good, that makes me happy At least you know what I say comes from a real person, and not the invisible man


tao

Ralph Ellison was an atheist? Wow, who knew?

[Tao_Equus]

Netti,

throughout this thread you have asked me to define the evidence for my original question. I have obliged at every turn. Now would you do me the courtesy of explaining exactly why you believe that it is no delusion and cite your evidence to support it?

tao

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Netti,

throughout this thread you have asked me to define the evidence for my original question. I have obliged at every turn. Now would you do me the courtesy of explaining exactly why you believe that it is no delusion and cite your evidence to support it?

Hello Tao,

As we have seen, when the unbeliever raises the existence of G-d issue, it can turn out to be an issue of evidence: specifically, what standard of evidence makes sense? I think we agree that a traditional scientific criteria for truth is not workable because (at least according to Karl Popper) disconfirmation is part of what it is to do hypothesis testing.

Having abandoned a scientific standard of evidence, we proceeded to "beyond reasonable doubt." I don't think that really went anywhere.

Here's my take in it: Matters of faith are not solved on the basis of evidence -- and I can say that even though I have been fortunate to have had somewhat unusual experiences that actually leave very little room for doubt. I should say especially fortunate because skepticism has come naturally to me. At the very least, I should be an agnostic, if not a card-carrying atheist.

At any rate, "Evidence" is mainly a concern for a nonbeliever, who probably won't be satisfied with any evidence anyway. For me the evidence is everywhere I look. The real problem for me is to really evolve the implications and put what I know work. But I see that as being more a function of lack of a faith in myself than lack of faith in G-d.

[Tao_Equus]

Netti,

The first time I got into discussion here with you was when you were trying to play down the injustices carried out on people under Islamic law. Again here on this thread we broached the subject of Muhammad being a warlord and this is why at the root Islam is anything but a peaceful religion. You refuted that analysis.

So now I return to this and make it clear why I state this to be a fact.

The Koran is said to have been delivered from Allah to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel. To Muslims it is the directly related will of the almighty. My argument is that he was a warlord who was aware of what Constantine had done with Christianity and adopted a similar method for himself. Let us examine this now in more detail.

In the beginning Muhammad was a powerless wannabe. In Mecca where he received his first "revelations" he was concerned about forming alliances and getting people on his side. And it is in these Koranic writings we find any mention of peace and acceptance of other beliefs and faiths. He at that point in his rise to power could not afford to have everybody as an enemy and so his talk reflected that reality. He would go on later to say that lying to the enemy is perfectly acceptable behaviour. (Sahih al Bukhari, Vol 4, Bk52,Hadith 269 :"war is deceit" and chapters 3 v28 and 16 v 106 of the Koran amongst others). For Muhammad it was a simple equation. You were either of the House of Islam, or of the House of War. You were either his follower or his enemy. Modern apologists and politicians have tried to spread the lie it is called the House of Peace. But that is what it is, a lie. The Arabic translation is clear it is the House of War. And that is what is taught in Islamic schools.

So we have established that Muhammad deliberately lied to form alliances in Mecca and in the 2nd part of the Koran (chronologically), written in Medina, when he has advanced his quest for power and won some battles his language changes dramatically. The first thing he says in the Koran is that everything he says from now on supersedes that which was revealed to him in Mecca. In fact this is where the Islamic calender begins. Not from the birth of Muhammad but from when he becomes a military and political leader in Medina. The first victory of Jihad is the start point and this has well hidden but, to fundamental Muslims, very important symbolically recurring patterns on all subsequent Jihad. And we cannot forget for one moment that the separation of spiritual dimensions within Islam from political ones is not only impossible, it is heretical. This is in the Koran. It is irrefutable being the word of Allah himself, not up to negotiation or reinterpretation. In Medina Muhammad superseded all his lies in Mecca and said that all the enemies of Islam, (non Muslims), were to be killed or reduced to slavery.

So we can see that from the outset Muhammad had a vision alright. And it was a vision of a megalomaniac warlord seeking complete power over everybody both politically and spiritually. Muhammad himself, by his own hand, is attributed to have beheaded 600-900 Jews in one incident alone where his army forced the already subdued prisoners to dig their own graves, lined them up beside them and beheaded them. In other incidents he cuts off opposite hands and feet and allows them to bleed slowly to death. A practice that goes on to this day in Sudan where Muslim extremists have murdered 1 million innocents.

So when you say he was "also a diplomat" yeh he was. But he was a self-confessed liar as a diplomat and his only aim was absolute power for himself as a warlord. This man ruled by the sword and used divine sanction as a justification. But I posit that he knew his "revelations" from the angel Gabriel were utter lies. He was a liar, a murderer and his megalomaniac legacy by its nature to this day presents humanity with one of its greatest problems. Islam has begun its 3rd stage of expansion. It uses lies to fool the "enemy" into a false sense of what it is. And we remain blind to its real purpose at our peril. Muhammad negated all the peaceful lies he spoke in Mecca. The real Islam, that which all Muslims are commanded to follow is the one of what the apologists would call extremists.

The west is caught in the Doctrine of Prof. Said and his book Orientalism where it is said any critical expression toward Islam is racist. This is a lie. This is the lie the Koran demands its believers to tell. Islam is supremacist and warlike, all its peaceful elements were lies and superseded by the command to subdue and destroy the enemies of Islam, everybody that is not an Arabic speaking Muslim.

I could write for a long time citing chapter and verse to support these claims and if you insist I will. But what I have written is the truth. He was a megalomaniac warlord and I will never climb down from that position.


tao

[greymare]

sorry Tao too pissed to coment

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Muhammad himself, by his own hand, is attributed to have beheaded 600-900

Who made the attribution?

The first thing he says in the Koran is that everything he says from now on supersedes that which was revealed to him in Mecca.

Chapter and verse for above claim please.

I could write for a long time citing chapter and verse to support these claims and if you insist I will.

See above.

But what I have written is the truth.

I'd be interested in your definition of truth.



Considering that historical detail regarding much of Muhammad's life is in dispute, I'm puzzled that you would speak with such certainty about it. The issue of historical accuracy aside, it is unclear whether Muhammad' life story is relevant to an evaluation of Islam in general or the the faith of contemporary Muslims in particular. FYI, my considered opinion is that attacks on the Prophet Muhammad constitute a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to authority. From the Wiki:

An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic consisting on basing the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge, expertise, or position of the person asserting it. It is known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. The corresponding reverse case would be an ad hominem attack: to imply that the claim is false because the asserter lacks authority or is otherwise objectionable in some way.

It seems some of these characterizations of the Prophet are intended - not to explain the origins of the religion - but to cast aspersions on the spiritual character of the religion's founder in order to discredit the religion. It's a cheap trick and does not make a case. I'm not buying it.

I'm not a Muslim and am not in a position to defend the faith. But I find it very easy to point out that certain characterizations lack support and have no place in evaluating the value of the religion of Islam, especially when specific claims are either simply unsubstantiated or, at best, in dispute.

If you are interested in getting a big picture, you might want to study the countries that are predominantly Sufi Islam. You might also want to study the cultural transformation of places like Saudi Arabia, whose hard line stance is actually a very recent development, which coincided with the establishment of dictatorships following extended periods of war and colonialism. In particular, the Wahhabists were enabled by Ibn Saud after they helped him get into power. Even the current Saudi regime is forced to placate these people.

I would be interested in what you turn up from a search on the prevalence of Islamic fundamentalism in countries that have been subject to grass roots movements or larger nationalistic movements in the wake of the chaos and instabilities produced by internal conflicts among various fiefdoms and/or colonization by Western powers. Poverty and unemployment should also be factored into the analysis. My working hypothesis is that the quasi-religious quality of some of these movements relates to attempts to drum up support and organize the masses.

Btw, you don't specify which countries you have in mind. Saudi Arabia is often cited as a bad example of Islam, as is Iran. It is my understanding that the situation in Iran has no historical precedent whatsoever and is discussed among Islamic scholars as being no only a historical aberration, but also discontinuous with Islamic tradition and jurisprudence.

Iran should be included in the analysis when examining my working hypothesis, particularly given recent evidence that "Islamic" rationalizations are used in conjucntion with unusual forms of control, with an intensification of quasi-religious modalities that correlated positively with a rise in social unrest and economic privations in the general population.

Btw, like Saudi Arabia, Iran has a long history of political instability, with a combination of extended conflicts (some lasting up to 100 years) and short-lived dynasties. Some of the greatest instabilities were recent.

In thios context, I predict raq will become fertile ground for radical fundamentalist power grabs on the part of factions who are playing off the US-led occupation. This is somewhat remarkable development considering that Iraq used to be a secular country. Widespread unemployment and lack of education among an entire generation of uprooted and dispossessed young people will provide many recruits. The situation will be largely self-perpetuating because it thrives on chaos.

Iraq's current transformation will go down in history as an example of unusual culture shock. Iraq had the largest middle class of any country in the region. Despite its immense oil resources, I believe the country is doomed to long-term pauperization by extended political disorganization.

I think you will have much better luck when you consider socioeconomic superstructure rather than blame religion.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

If you are interested in getting a big picture, you might want to study the countries that are predominantly Sufi Islam. You might also want to study the cultural transformation of places like Saudi Arabia, whose hard line stance is actually a very recent development, which coincided with the establishment of dictatorships following extended periods of war and colonialism. In particular, the Wahhabists were enabled by Ibn Saud after they helped him get into power. Even the current Saudi regime is forced to placate these people.

I would be interested in what you turn up from a search on the prevalence of Islamic fundamentalism in countries that have been subject to grass roots movements or larger nationalistic movements in the wake of the chaos and instabilities produced by internal conflicts among various fiefdoms and/or colonization by Western powers. Poverty and unemployment should also be factored into the analysis. My working hypothesis is that the quasi-religious quality of some of these movements relates to attempts to drum up support and organize the masses.

Btw, you don't specify which countries you have in mind. Saudi Arabia is often cited as a bad example of Islam, as is Iran. It is my understanding that the situation in Iran has no historical precedent whatsoever and is discussed among Islamic scholars as being no only a historical aberration, but also discontinuous with Islamic tradition and jurisprudence.

Iran should be included in the analysis when examining my working hypothesis, particularly given recent evidence that "Islamic" rationalizations are used in conjucntion with unusual forms of control, with an intensification of quasi-religious modalities that correlated positively with a rise in social unrest and economic privations in the general population.

Btw, like Saudi Arabia, Iran has a long history of political instability, with a combination of extended conflicts (some lasting up to 100 years) and short-lived dynasties. Some of the greatest instabilities were recent.

In thios context, I predict raq will become fertile ground for radical fundamentalist power grabs on the part of factions who are playing off the US-led occupation. This is somewhat remarkable development considering that Iraq used to be a secular country. Widespread unemployment and lack of education among an entire generation of uprooted and dispossessed young people will provide many recruits. The situation will be largely self-perpetuating because it thrives on chaos.

Iraq's current transformation will go down in history as an example of unusual culture shock. Iraq had the largest middle class of any country in the region. Despite its immense oil resources, I believe the country is doomed to long-term pauperization by extended political disorganization.

I think you will have much better luck when you consider socioeconomic superstructure rather than blame religion.

Hi Netti. You’ve brought up some important historical and political considerations especially the relatively recent phenomena of the Wahhabism (the preferred term from the inside is Salafism, referring to Muhammad and his immediate companions), and the Iranian state, which is unique in the history of Islam.

I haven’t followed this discussion, and don’t want to really get into it, but I do have one point to make: that we can waste a lot of time when we fall into either/or on this question, blaming either religion or historical/economic/political/ecological factors. Surely we can agree that there’s an interaction between religion and other social factors. If it’s true that Islam in itself doesn’t always and everywhere lead to violence, that it’s not simply and intrinsically violent, it’s also true that its repeated invocation in the cause of violence tells you something about its fundamental structure. As Sam Harris, has said, we don’t really know of a lot of Tibetan suicide bombers – at least not so far. The point is that while practically any doctrine can be used to justify violence, given the right pressures, not all doctrines are equally susceptible.

So in instead of taking this issue as an occasion to either defend or attack Islam, I think it’s more useful to point out how these various factors work together: the core doctrines of Islam, the impact and fusion of Western totalitarian ideologies, the legacy of competition with Europe and European imperialism, the toxic rectangle of the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia and oil, the ages-old traditions of Middle Eastern despotism, etc.

I think some of what you mentioned above is a good start on this.

Shanti.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

we can waste a lot of time when we fall into either/or on this question, blaming either religion or historical/economic/political/ecological factors. Surely we can agree that there’s an interaction between religion and other social factors.

The distinction between motive force versus ideological rationalization would suggest that "historical/economic/political/ecological factors" are likely more the powerful factor. I see the religious aspect as potentially being little more than "window dressing" or a secondary element in recruitment and political cohesion.

If it’s true that Islam in itself doesn’t always and everywhere lead to violence, that it’s not simply and intrinsically violent, it’s also true that its repeated invocation in the cause of violence tells you something about its fundamental structure.

I disagree. For example, suicide is forbidden in the Koran. Political motivations for such action even though it is fobidden by the religion may be stronger in some parts of the world. The predominant religion may be completely incidental.

The point is that while practically any doctrine can be used to justify violence, given the right pressures, not all doctrines are equally susceptible.

Here it seems you are ascribing more importance to doctrine than to "historical/economic/political/ecological factors."

It's interesting to debate competing explanations off the cuff, but in the end a broad empirical and historical perspective is required. I suspect that given the role of negaction human behavior, that behavioral predictions based mainly on ideology to the exclusion of superstructure considerations and powerful emotional issues that arise from economic and political privations are likely to be poor in predictive validity.

[Tao_Equus]

Everything I say is from the Koran itself or from some of the oldest and most respected Hadiths. I hope you are prepared to try and defend the indefensible. I will be back with a comprehensive series of quotes.

tao

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

The distinction between motive force versus ideological rationalization would suggest that "historical/economic/political/ecological factors" are likely more the powerful factor. I see the religious aspect as potentially being little more than "window dressing" or a secondary element in recruitment and political cohesion.

Hi Netti Netti. Nice to see you haven’t lost your edge! But you seem to be taking me as far more contrary to your point of view than I in fact am. (Perhaps you’re over-reacting to me because of the either/or debate you’re having with Tao?) I’m firmly in the middle on this. I fully agree on the first importance of the whole complex of root concrete conditions. But while one can point to particular cases where religious ideology is mere “window dressing”, I don’t believe one can say that this is true categorically in the present circumstances, or that Islamic strands of thought are uninvolved or have no true motive force.

But I’m sure you don’t really mean to take it that far, because you’d have to adhere to some brand of strict materialism to hold that only material/economic conditions really count, and unless I misjudge you I don’t think you do; for if Islam has no true motive force now, then how can we assume it ever did: its original emergence from the peninsula was perhaps simply a factor of political/economic forces of the time and the weakness of competing empires. If religious ideology has no motive force, then the rise of Christianity was similarly incidental and it too had no transformative power.

Of course, if one is engaged in apologetics, then the issue is a little different. From the point of view of apologetics, there is some ideal orthodoxy located somewhere in the past. It is by definition perfect and cannot produce evil. Any evil done in its name is distortion and slander. This is a theological position.

But perhaps you agree that what at issue here is not theology. It’s the attempt to assess the root causes of certain varieties of human violence. And again, my position is in the middle and pragmatic. Briefly, both the Koran and the Tanakh/Old Testament were produced in concrete conditions of great conflict and violence, which they both on the one hand reflect and on the other hand try to address. Atheists like Sam Harris maintain that these books reflect pretty much nothing but this violence, and primitive violence at that; apologists maintain that their books are the pure solutions to violence, God’s keys to the kingdom.

The reality is that people have always read these texts both to support and to suppress violence; sometimes one motive predominates, but more often then not the motives are mixed. Such is the state of our confusion, and that’s why one can’t easily separate the sheep from the goats. (And that’s why in my view one can’t point to some inerrant text at year zero: an inerrant text can only be confirmed by an inerrant reading, and that is yet to appear, whether you believe in this possibility or not.)

In my view each side of this either/or is imaginary: a pure Islam has never existed, either as a religion of peace or of a religion of war. The tendency in this debate is to drastically overemphasize one side or the other – and the motives in either case are usually obvious.

So I was only trying to call attention to the middle ground, more reflective of actuality, where I believe stands of Islamic thought do interact with other conditions to produce what we see as outcomes.

To be clear: I wasn’t saying that you’re necessarily wedded to one side. I understand the dynamic of your interaction with Tao. Again, I was only drawing attention to the problem, and commending your move of bringing out some historical background.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

It's interesting to debate competing explanations off the cuff, but in the end a broad empirical and historical perspective is required. I suspect that given the role of negaction human behavior, that behavioral predictions based mainly on ideology to the exclusion of superstructure considerations and powerful emotional issues that arise from economic and political privations are likely to be poor in predictive validity.

Indubitably, said Dr. Watson as he tamped down and lit his pipe, gazing out into the darkening moors...

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

...you seem to be taking me as far more contrary to your point of view than I in fact am.

Just keeping the thesis going in the antithesis.

....But while one can point to particular cases where religious ideology is mere “window dressing”, I don’t believe one can say that this is true categorically in the present circumstances, or that Islamic strands of thought are uninvolved or have no true motive force.

I do appreciate you following the argument closely and I recognize your effort to steer toward a middle ground. However, I am not so sure a middle ground is warranted.

Large-scale surveys have found negligible correlations between religiosity and political attitudes in predominantly Muslim countries. Further, indepth interviews with radical fundamentalists from these parts have revealed political grievances and personal pathologies of various kinds that seem highly specific to these individuals and have nothing to do with religion. I wonder whether there any religious motive force at all.

The variable that most closely resembles a religious commitment that would have motive force is a desire to defend Muslim countries from encroachment by nonMulsim entities. This is more like nationalism and a wish to preserve cultural purity and autonomy than religiosity.

....If Islam has no true motive force now, then how can we assume it ever did: its original emergence from the peninsula was perhaps simply a factor of political/economic forces of the time and the weakness of competing empires.

My understanding is that the initial spread of Islam was fairly informal and organic along trade routes.

If religious ideology has no motive force, then the rise of Christianity was similarly incidental and it too had no transformative power.

I see the Church as having had motive force.

Of course, if one is engaged in apologetics, then the issue is a little different. From the point of view of apologetics, there is some ideal orthodoxy located somewhere in the past. It is by definition perfect and cannot produce evil. Any evil done in its name is distortion and slander. This is a theological position.

It is one that would seem to make any direct challenges pointless.

Btw, I was interested to read the Church's guidelines concerning the interpretation of scripture. One of the hermeneutic criteria was "Analogy of Faith." A nice term for adapting ambiguous passages to other interpretations that have already been declared authentic by the Church. In formal epistemology, this is known a "stacking the deck."

The reality is that people have always read these texts both to support and to suppress violence; sometimes one motive predominates, but more often then not the motives are mixed.

I would distinguish the religion from specific cultural and institutional practices.

In my view each side of this either/or is imaginary: a pure Islam has never existed, either as a religion of peace or of a religion of war. The tendency in this debate is to drastically overemphasize one side or the other – and the motives in either case are usually obvious.

Agreed.

To be clear: I wasn’t saying that you’re necessarily wedded to one side. I understand the dynamic of your interaction with Tao. Again, I was only drawing attention to the problem, and commending your move of bringing out some historical background.

Nothing wrong with that.

Indubitably, said Dr. Watson as he tamped down and lit his pipe, gazing out into the darkening moors...

Actually the model I'm referring to is emminently testable by straightforward regression analysis.

[Tao_Equus]

Netti,

reading through your discussion here with Devadatta it is apparent to me that again you are trying to divorce rational scrutiny from anything you deem to be religious. This is the most disingenuous and fraudulent effort to avoid pragmatic truths. I can only imagine that whoever you are and whatever you do you must have some kind of vested interest in steering the debate away from rational scrutiny. Something you have time and time again tried to do. For example you make this effort to disassociate law and politics from Islam, frankly this is one of the most ridiculous propositions I have ever seen forwarded in any debate here at CR. Or your utterly preposterous contention that the two historical waves of Islamic expansion were peaceful!! I do not care about your university endeavours to to intellectualise what is after all a mass movement of common people led on the whole by typical despots. The masses of Muslims and their leaders are not University scholars and all your playing with words has no effect on what they think, do or what is a fair interpretation of Islam. You can do a wonderful analysis of the different starches and sugars in a potato, but to the masses it is still just a potato. The Koran was not written for university scholars, it was written as the politcal/religious law of the people of Islamic faith. It is a religion of supremacy, conquest and barbarity to non-believers.

I am still working on a comprehensive presentation of Islam by Islam to demonstrate that it is anything but peaceful. But the way you already charged me to do so as I think about it already says a great deal to me. You seem to present yourself as highly knowledgeable about Islam but you are asking me to take the time to compile that which you MUST KNOW exists. In this, and in what I have referred to many times already as your slippery attitude, I am left with no option but to believe you will never meet me on neutral ground. So be it. The truth has its own need to be told. William Shakespeare.tao

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

The reality is that people have always read these texts both to support and to suppress violence; sometimes one motive predominates, but more often then not the motives are mixed.

Interesting. The Koran seems to hold a key for this sort of thing: While the scriptures describe both good and evil, there is a provision regarding right guidance:

Koran, M.H. Shakir translation
[6.80] And his people disputed with him. He said: Do you dispute with me respecting Allah? And He has guided me indeed; and I do not fear in any way those that you set up with Him, unless my Lord pleases; my Lord comprehends all things in His knowledge; will you not then mind?
[6.81] And how should I fear what you have set up (with Him), while you do not fear that you have set up with Allah that for which He has not sent down to you any authority; which then of the two parties is surer of security, if you know?
[6.82] Those who believe and do not mix up their faith with iniquity, those are they who shall have the security and they are those who go aright.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Large-scale surveys have found negligible correlations between religiosity and political attitudes in predominantly Muslim countries. Further, indepth interviews with radical fundamentalists from these parts have revealed political grievances and personal pathologies of various kinds that seem highly specific to these individuals and have nothing to do with religion. I wonder whether there any religious motive force at all.

The variable that most closely resembles a religious commitment that would have motive force is a desire to defend Muslim countries from encroachment by nonMulsim entities. This is more like nationalism and a wish to preserve cultural purity and autonomy than religiosity.

Since I haven’t read these studies I’m going on supposition here, assuming there are few devils in the details. But from what you describe, certainly these kinds of studies are important, but I guess what they lack – and what’s fairly difficult to provide in a definitive way – are control groups, other populations of different ideological formations undergoing similar pressures. (We do have rough analogies, of course, the paucity of Tibetan suicide bombers I mentioned, for example.)

And I think you’d agree that it isn’t simply a question of this or that motive a subject admits to having, but also a question of mentality and ideological conditioning. The same two individuals with similar motives, and even similar levels of mental instability, may very well act out their distress in radically different ways, following the blueprint and possibilities of their formative ideology.

On the issue of suicide bombing, there is of course the evidence of the sheer numbers of Muslims willing to make this murderous sacrifice, so certainly there is a significant correlation, i.e., significant in the sense of the sheer numbers. The question is whether that correlation is meaningful, i.e., does it provide any information about the mental world of Islam?

In the absence of any definitive answer we’re left with probabilities, and of course with the political/pragmatic question of whether giving Islamic thought a pass on this is useful in getting this violence under control, or a compassionate act in relation to Muslims.

But of course this isn’t just about individual suicide bombers. It’s also about their level of approval in Muslim societies. It’s about violent reactions to the depiction of Mohammad, to the mere suggestion of the desecration of a Koran. It’s about the popular demand for death to apostates, for the mere act of converting to Christianity. Now, one can easily say that this is just a question of self-interested or psychotic elites manipulating the sense of grievance of the masses, or the backwardness of some of these societies. But to take Islam out of the equation when it is the mental world in which this all takes place seems to me a counterproductive move if one is trying to understand what’s going on.

Consider as well this whole issue of historical grievance. As you may have seen, I’m as anti-imperialist as one might wish. I fully appreciate the idea of blowback from the centuries of European and the decades of American meddling in that region. But imperialism was and is a global phenomenon, as is poverty and other sources of grievance. But there’s a special pathology to the various kinds of disarray we see in the Arab and Muslim worlds, which is far more psychological than material in nature, which festers on despite decades of independence and vast amounts of revenue from oil – ironically, this revenue only fuels the pathology, funding radical madrassas and the operations of terrorists.
For me this is of a piece with the historical crisis in the Arab and Muslim worlds, its difficult adjustment to modernity, which is taking its own unique form, and again within the common mental sphere of Islam.

So in my view we should not give Islam a pass. The truly compassionate action is to call Islam to account.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

My understanding is that the initial spread of Islam was fairly informal and organic along trade routes.

Well, I'm not an expert on this either, but we should keep in mind that the control of trade roots was a function of great powers from the earliest civilizations in middle east on, so one can't ignore the imperial dynamic. What your're saying here is more desriptive of Buddhism, which spread without assuming any administrative/imperial function.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

I would distinguish the religion from specific cultural and institutional practices.

I'm not sure of your point here. Are you saying that the scriptures lie outside culture?

Shanti.