Reasons for the Rise of Fundamentalism
- Thread starter lavender
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
Get a life!
8217 post. you dont get out much do you.
8217 post. you dont get out much do you.
freescorfr
Awaiting autumn harvests
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2002
- Posts
- 2,805
Thanks for posting it. I find it a consise and clear run-through of how we got here. We look at frightening times in history - the great conflicts and wars and the same patterns are repeated.
I heard Desmong Tutu the other day saying, "I'm hopeful, which is not to say I am optimistic.." about the future of his country.
I'm hopeful for the future of humanity and I even see some grounds for optimism. Perhaps the possibilty of globally communicating with each other suggests, to me, the greatest potential for human development and co-operation.
How quickly can we get the world's poor on the net?
As for the individual fundamentalist fanatic, I undertand well that in our developmental stages (Kohlberg or Eriksons) we pass through a period of belief in absolutes. Ignatius Loyola's vow of obedience to the Pope for the Jesuits produced many martyrs for causes which now seem plain daft. I think it's important to accept and acknowledge the legitimacy of this stage and to develop strategies for enabling people - especially the young men in persecuted and poverty stricken communities - to empower themselves as individuals rather than sacrifice their lives as pawns in a gesture of blind obedience.
What may be of importance is for the christian churches to work closely with western muslims on development education. I have no idea to what extent this is happening, but I do believe that many non-governmental development agencies have a mature philosophy of their task which also gives me hope.
I heard Desmong Tutu the other day saying, "I'm hopeful, which is not to say I am optimistic.." about the future of his country.
I'm hopeful for the future of humanity and I even see some grounds for optimism. Perhaps the possibilty of globally communicating with each other suggests, to me, the greatest potential for human development and co-operation.
How quickly can we get the world's poor on the net?
As for the individual fundamentalist fanatic, I undertand well that in our developmental stages (Kohlberg or Eriksons) we pass through a period of belief in absolutes. Ignatius Loyola's vow of obedience to the Pope for the Jesuits produced many martyrs for causes which now seem plain daft. I think it's important to accept and acknowledge the legitimacy of this stage and to develop strategies for enabling people - especially the young men in persecuted and poverty stricken communities - to empower themselves as individuals rather than sacrifice their lives as pawns in a gesture of blind obedience.
What may be of importance is for the christian churches to work closely with western muslims on development education. I have no idea to what extent this is happening, but I do believe that many non-governmental development agencies have a mature philosophy of their task which also gives me hope.
Weird Harold
Opinionated Old Fart
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2000
- Posts
- 23,768
freescorfr said:
This article prompted me to do some research on the Net about the history of Iran, and fundamentalist muslim movements.
What I found, (from BBC, Cyberiran, and other websites,) is that the article Lavendar posted is very biased and one sided.
First and foremost, it ignores the effects of British, Soviet and Ottoman influences on the roots of fundametalist Islam. It also seems to suggest that one of our primary mistakes in the middle east, was to overthrow the wrong revolutionary governments.
If you've got the time, this article is a more more complete and balanced treatise on the roots and rise of fundamentalist islam.
Islamic Fundamentalism: What are its common features
The article Lavendar posted does make some pertinent points -- The US' involvement and record in the middle east is by no means spotless. For example, it appears that US support of the Shah's counter revolution in 1953 was as a proxie for a Britain, because she lost a suit against the nationalization of the Anglo-Iran Oil company.
The article I cite makes it clear, that Everyone who has ever had any interests in the Middle East has tried to use Islamic religious leaders as their proxies, feeding and nurturing whatever Islamic splinter group would support their position -- Middle Eastern governments are masters at the art of using the islamic clergy to control the masses.
IMHO, the antagonism towards the USA hinges primarily on our visibility as "the biggest bully on the block." Attacking others, like Britain or Russia, doesn't garner enough press, even though those others have longer and more devious histories of meddling in the region.
freescorfr
Awaiting autumn harvests
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2002
- Posts
- 2,805
I think the crux of Lavender's article is that the principle on which the USA intervenes in Islamic countries is solely self-interest.
That's got little to do with operating on the wrong principle in the first place. The primary mistake, and I think the article makes it clear, is not having a benevolent motive for intervention in the first place.
The economic and political antecedents of fundamentalist extremism are outlined in the article as poverty, oppression, loss of identity by enforced dis-location, inequality and injustice.
Your article is, Wierd Harold, indeed fuller and much windier,
It makes, through a repetition of the sentiment that
My own desire is that the USA, with all its military power would behave in an adult and reflective way, as indeed it has done up until the present, but for Bush to hear the voices of maturity we all have to shout at him fucking loud!
That's got little to do with operating on the wrong principle in the first place. The primary mistake, and I think the article makes it clear, is not having a benevolent motive for intervention in the first place.
The economic and political antecedents of fundamentalist extremism are outlined in the article as poverty, oppression, loss of identity by enforced dis-location, inequality and injustice.
Your article is, Wierd Harold, indeed fuller and much windier,
It makes, through a repetition of the sentiment that
, the point that Lavender has made elsewhere: this is indeed an Islamic Reformation.
My own desire is that the USA, with all its military power would behave in an adult and reflective way, as indeed it has done up until the present, but for Bush to hear the voices of maturity we all have to shout at him fucking loud!
Weird Harold
Opinionated Old Fart
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2000
- Posts
- 23,768
lavender said:
It is very much like me not to respond once I've stated my position. It's not like you misunderstood the fact that I think your source is biased and incomplete.
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
Yep
The source is indeed biased and incomplete. The regional dynamincs are such that the US played a relatively minor role until the 80's. The Shah being one of the few exceptions.
Why are they called fundamentalists? It is a return to the days of yore. An attempt to recapture the essence of a dying culture. It is a return to the core fundamentals of the religion. Now, THAT should scare some people.
quote from Lavenders post:
The roots of Islamic radicalism stem from economic inequality, military occupation, and authoritarianism. Given that U.S. policy in the Middle East and elsewhere has often perpetuated such injustices, responsibility for the rise of
radical Islamic movements can often be traced to the United States itself.
This gets to the nut of it. The US is to be blamed for the fact that only one Muslim nation has anything approaching a democracy. That only one has anything approaching individual freedom. And amazingly enough, it is the most prosperess of the Muslim nations in terms of the general welfare of the people. It is also a mid-eastern country that the peoples of their neighbors can look to for a model of government. I'm speaking of Turkey of course.
There is an implication in the article that IF the United States had invaded, removed the dictators from power, and instituted a 'democratic' form of government in these countries, everything would be all right. The British tried that in the 18th and 19th century. Didn't work for them either. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
The goal of US policy is generally to preserve stability. We have dealt with all manner of governments over the years in much the same manner. While the Shah was a mistake, how he handled his internal affairs was generally beyond the reach of the US government to control. It was his poliicies that brought about the fall of his regime. Not the US's.
The Fundalmentalist movement is being manipulated by many very wealthy men for their own purposes. bin Laden is no pauper, nor are most of his lieutenants and operatives. One of the first rules of politics is to identify an 'enemy' of the people and rally them to the cause. The 'enemy' doesn't have to be real, only plausible with some conveniently twisted facts. One then goes about recruiting sympathizers within the 'enemies' camp. These people are well meaning, but woefully misguided. One has only to look at the inordinate number of Nazi sympathizers in Great Britain and the United Sates prior to the initiation of hostilies during the beginning days of WWII.
Forget what you hear, forget what you read. Measure them by their deeds. Their deeds towards their enemies, and their deeds with respect to the treatment of their own people while they are in power. THAT is the only true measure of their worthiness to lead and govern.
Ishmael
Weird Harold said:
The source is indeed biased and incomplete. The regional dynamincs are such that the US played a relatively minor role until the 80's. The Shah being one of the few exceptions.
Why are they called fundamentalists? It is a return to the days of yore. An attempt to recapture the essence of a dying culture. It is a return to the core fundamentals of the religion. Now, THAT should scare some people.
quote from Lavenders post:
The roots of Islamic radicalism stem from economic inequality, military occupation, and authoritarianism. Given that U.S. policy in the Middle East and elsewhere has often perpetuated such injustices, responsibility for the rise of
radical Islamic movements can often be traced to the United States itself.
This gets to the nut of it. The US is to be blamed for the fact that only one Muslim nation has anything approaching a democracy. That only one has anything approaching individual freedom. And amazingly enough, it is the most prosperess of the Muslim nations in terms of the general welfare of the people. It is also a mid-eastern country that the peoples of their neighbors can look to for a model of government. I'm speaking of Turkey of course.
There is an implication in the article that IF the United States had invaded, removed the dictators from power, and instituted a 'democratic' form of government in these countries, everything would be all right. The British tried that in the 18th and 19th century. Didn't work for them either. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
The goal of US policy is generally to preserve stability. We have dealt with all manner of governments over the years in much the same manner. While the Shah was a mistake, how he handled his internal affairs was generally beyond the reach of the US government to control. It was his poliicies that brought about the fall of his regime. Not the US's.
The Fundalmentalist movement is being manipulated by many very wealthy men for their own purposes. bin Laden is no pauper, nor are most of his lieutenants and operatives. One of the first rules of politics is to identify an 'enemy' of the people and rally them to the cause. The 'enemy' doesn't have to be real, only plausible with some conveniently twisted facts. One then goes about recruiting sympathizers within the 'enemies' camp. These people are well meaning, but woefully misguided. One has only to look at the inordinate number of Nazi sympathizers in Great Britain and the United Sates prior to the initiation of hostilies during the beginning days of WWII.
Forget what you hear, forget what you read. Measure them by their deeds. Their deeds towards their enemies, and their deeds with respect to the treatment of their own people while they are in power. THAT is the only true measure of their worthiness to lead and govern.
Ishmael
