It is "Cool" to be Muslim

[Quad4_72]

So this is my first time venturing into the religion and philosophy section of this board, so I am very curious to see the types of responses I receive. I am sure that they will be enlightening and intelligent. I kind of need a little break from the Conspiracy section of the forum. Sometimes debating some of the nutters that post over there can be a bit much and hurt your head.

Ok, so I was sitting around the other night thinking deeply about the answers to some of the most important questions in life and watching an infomercial for Girls Gone Wild when I started thinking about Muslims and why they do what they do.

Why do the Muslims insist on blowing themselves up for their "God"?* Why do they go to all sorts of extremes to attack the US and Israel? Why do they become enraged when a cartoon appears depicting Muhammed?

Well, I am sure that most everyone in here is aware of their beliefs and what Islam teaches. They are aware of all of the supposed virgins they are supposed to get when they die and that most of them who commit these terrible atrocities have a very extreme translation of Islam. But could there possibly be another answer to the Muslim way of thinking?

First of all, I want to start out saying that this is PURE speculation, nothing more. It is simply a little theory that I have been thinking about and I would LOVE if someone would be able to shed a bit more light on this for me.

One of my thoughts is that religion is seen in a completely different light in the middle east. Society is centered around religion, and the more into religion you are, the higher up in status you become.

In our society, religion is seen as something very different. While it is generally looked up upon when you are religious, you are looked at no different for your religious values. In US society, wealth and power are the key influences with regards to status. The more money you have, the more respect you get. The more power you have, the more respect you get.

In Muslim society, I think that religion is looked at very differently. I think that maybe wealth and power become less of the driving force for status when compared with religion. Religion is what gets the respect so the more religious you are, the higher status you have and the more respect you get.

What I am suggesting is that maybe some of the radical actions taken by Muslims may be driven by a desire to gain more respect and a higher status in their society. It may not have that much to do with their personal beliefs.

For example, becoming enraged by a little cartoon. It may be possible that in Muslim society the more enraged you are by the cartoon, the more religious you appear. Then the more actions you take against this cartoon the more status you gain as you appear very religious. You may gain more respect the more violent you become with your "Overwhelming feeling of rage for the cartoon that has depicted Muhammed".

This also may apply to how people feel towards the U.S. It may start becoming "Cool" to view the U.S. as evil and on a mission to push "our" religion on them. Religion is a way of life in the Middle East, so it is not unlikely to assume that it is treated very differently than it is in America.

Like I said that is all pure speculation but it would be nice if someone on this board has been over to the middle east and actually been involved in Muslim society who can spread a little more light on how religion in Muslim society is different from religion in the U.S.

[fuelair]

Mostly correct for the kook branches/members of the Muslim community - the rational ones are more reasonable. I.e., they want to make a little money, have fun with friends and family - as boring as it might sound, they want to do what I suspect 90% of every population wants to do - just get along ang survive with a little happiness and hope. That's why I do not hate and want to destroy Muslims, Christians, Communists, Fascists, etc., etc. I hate and want to destroy the 10% or so who don't. (Note, to those who have read other posts of mine that may seem to negate this - if a 90%er population let's the 10%ers hide among them then that plan is off - the 10%ers must be exterminated.)

[Quad4_72]

Yes I do agree with you on this. About 90% of the population just wants to be happy and will not do anything extreme to push some stupid agenda or a religion. But I still can't help but think that in Muslim society they may view religion quite a bit differently than how we do here in the U.S. It is more a way of life than how we view it. No most of them don't take it to the extreme, but it is still viewed much differently than hwo we view it.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Non-fanatical Muslims are not cool at all.

I mean, like working for a living and getting along with customers and like that.

Squaresville.

:cool:

[l0rca]

My main argument for and against muslim religion is to look at the geography. Muslim religion in the Middle East did not go through the civilization and the moral pressure the rest of religions went through. The weapons they have now do not reflect the sophistication of their ideas.

However, if you look at the civilized Muslim world -- the Muslims who live in the UK and America (those who I have personally spoke to and witnessed the opinions of) they are very much as educated and moral as the everyday person.

Therefore I would not blame this terrorism on their religion, but on their Middle-aged intellectual level they have in the 3rd-world.

[Foster Zygote]

My main argument for and against muslim religion is to look at the geography. Muslim religion in the Middle East did not go through the civilization and the moral pressure the rest of religions went through. The weapons they have now do not reflect the sophistication of their ideas.

However, if you look at the civilized Muslim world -- the Muslims who live in the UK and America (those who I have personally spoke to and witnessed the opinions of) they are very much as educated and moral as the everyday person.

Therefore I would not blame this terrorism on their religion, but on their Middle-aged intellectual level they have in the 3rd-world.

Good point, although it is possible to find moderate Muslims in the Middle-East as well. Unfortunately, they are not free to express their more liberal views openly in many places. My brother-in-law is a US Army Ranger and he's done a tour in Afghanistan and two in Iraq. He said that in both places the most hateful extremists were almost invariably the least educated. Sadly, there are loads of poorly educated people to be found in the 3rd world. Interestingly, my bro-in-law makes little distinction between extremists of differing faiths. He said (and I agree) that if the situation were reversed, if the industrialized nations were Muslim and the 3rd world were Christian we'd be afraid of Christian terrorism.

[Quad4_72]

My main argument for and against muslim religion is to look at the geography. Muslim religion in the Middle East did not go through the civilization and the moral pressure the rest of religions went through. The weapons they have now do not reflect the sophistication of their ideas.

However, if you look at the civilized Muslim world -- the Muslims who live in the UK and America (those who I have personally spoke to and witnessed the opinions of) they are very much as educated and moral as the everyday person.

Therefore I would not blame this terrorism on their religion, but on their Middle-aged intellectual level they have in the 3rd-world.

Ah. Tousche. A viewpoint that I had not ever really considered. Education and modernization does play a huge factor.

[Quad4_72]

He said (and I agree) that if the situation were reversed, if the industrialized nations were Muslim and the 3rd world were Christian we'd be afraid of Christian terrorism.

Couldn't agree more. Once again never thought of that. I need to come over to the Religion and Philosophy section more often
:)

[Foster Zygote]

I kind of need a little break from the Conspiracy section of the forum. Sometimes debating some of the nutters that post over there can be a bit much and hurt your head.

Welcome to this corner of the forum BTW. But beware. Sometimes debating some of the nutters that post over here can be a bit much and hurt your head.:D

[l0rca]

Good point, although it is possible to find moderate Muslims in the Middle-East as well. Unfortunately, they are not free to express their more liberal views openly in many places. My brother-in-law is a US Army Ranger and he's done a tour in Afghanistan and two in Iraq. He said that in both places the most hateful extremists were almost invariably the least educated. Sadly, there are loads of poorly educated people to be found in the 3rd world. Interestingly, my bro-in-law makes little distinction between extremists of differing faiths. He said (and I agree) that if the situation were reversed, if the industrialized nations were Muslim and the 3rd world were Christian we'd be afraid of Christian terrorism.

I was thinking about editing my post with this point. But I thought someone else would include it here and I could remain lazy, and just add to it, if the adding I didn't find sufficient.

My adding then is the available education on the matter. The geography and lack of widespread education in the Middle East is still capable of producing a large amount of terrorist organizations.

You too fully accord this as well in your post. So I guess it's no so much an add as an echo.

[Zep]

I would suggest that perhaps education more than "modernisation" is the issue at hand. First-hand in India, I worked with (and taught) both Muslim and Hindu students in bleeding-edge computing subjects. While they were indeed devout, none of them wanted to kill each other, nor did any of them want to kill me. They would certainly not be among the highest paid people in our world (high by their standards, but below dirt-poor by ours), and their level of technology (in computing, anyway) is about 20 years behind us in "the west". But they are educated people, wise to what is happening in the world (internet-savvy), and just nice folks into the bargain. Their biggest concerns were much more in line with ours - food on the table, progress in their career, relationships, friends, family, good times and personal happiness. I could see none of them slinging a rock or strapping on C4 to achieve that.

[pipelineaudio]

. He said that in both places the most hateful extremists were almost invariably the least educated. Sadly, there are loads of poorly educated people to be found in the 3rd world. Interestingly, my bro-in-law makes little distinction between extremists of differing faiths. He said (and I agree) that if the situation were reversed, if the industrialized nations were Muslim and the 3rd world were Christian we'd be afraid of Christian terrorism.

Dont read too much into this, the muslim terrorists that have done the USA BY FAR the most harm were highly educated

[l0rca]

Dont read too much into this, the muslim terrorists that have done the USA BY FAR the most harm were highly educated

Does highly educated denote highly intelligent? And what are you saying they are educated in? Politics? Sociology? Philosophy? Science? Flying planes? How to fire a weapon? Language?

[blutoski]

My main argument for and against muslim religion is to look at the geography. Muslim religion in the Middle East did not go through the civilization and the moral pressure the rest of religions went through. The weapons they have now do not reflect the sophistication of their ideas.

However, if you look at the civilized Muslim world -- the Muslims who live in the UK and America (those who I have personally spoke to and witnessed the opinions of) they are very much as educated and moral as the everyday person.

Therefore I would not blame this terrorism on their religion, but on their Middle-aged intellectual level they have in the 3rd-world.

Rushdie and Warack actually put the order in reverse: the religion's impact on their culture is such that philosophical - and ultimately scientific - advancement became difficult. Unlike in the Christian world, apostasy was always punished by death. Consequently, religious leaders held incredible power of violence. This continues today.

Secondly, specific interpretations of the Koran prevented the development of "non-person legal entities" such as the university, which prevented institutionalization of ideas that could pass from generation to generation. Knowledge was passed on from individual to individual instead, and when a teacher died, his tradition typically ended. This left religion as the only intellectual institution.

Having said that, Warack does point out that the Koran does not explicitly make this necessary: it is a specific interpretation of the Koran that became dominant centuries ago, and the one-way trip to enforced ignorance meant the trend was irreversible.

This view is reflected independently by Hecht in her book, Doubt.

[blutoski]

Does highly educated denote highly intelligent? And what are you saying they are educated in? Politics? Sociology? Philosophy? Science? Flying planes? How to fire a weapon? Language?

Most had technical degrees, such as computer science or engineering. I believe one was a research chemist.

There is a lot of discussion about this: that radicalism is a result of the collision of worldviews, rather than immersion. Wahabism (OBL's faith) in particular more or less revolves around anti-Westernism, and is very modern. It was founded as a response to the threat of American global hegemony, and appeals to educated and better-travelled moslems.

[l0rca]

I've come across this view and I recognize it as a factor, but I think the social pressure of a more civilized world has a stronger influence on a religion than its leaders and religious interpretations.

Actually I should give it more credit than that. The antidote for us was the Renaissance and secular humanism. I don't know how to reconcile the beginning of these intellectual movements on what was the strongest reasons involved, but I do know that social pressure has a lot to do with the reasonability of religions in the 1st world. My reasoning does show why civilized Muslims are just as humane as the rest, but I admit I don't really know the technical reasons or the history of the Middle East to submit a reason why they never intellectually evolved as we did.

Most had technical degrees, such as computer science or engineering. I believe one was a research chemist.

There is a lot of discussion about this: that radicalism is a result of the collision of worldviews, rather than immersion. Wahabism (OBL's faith) in particular more or less revolves around anti-Westernism, and is very modern. It was founded as a response to the threat of American global hegemony, and appeals to educated and better-travelled moslems.

Yes, this is the direction I was going. I don't think their education was sufficient to encourage critical thinking on their morals and ethics. I think their education still allowed a dogmatic approach to philosophical and philanthropic questions.

I was thinking to say that these educations took place in an environment that was still dogmatic, but I don't know where these people studied.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Sorry to bring a little low brow into this but I actually like the idea (don't remember if it was on here or a comedian) that terrorism is all about sexual repression.

It's really hard to get laid in many middle eastern countries. Here in the west, we have readily available avenues for release. But Muslim extremist pressures just build and build until... they blow themselves up.

And it's so obvious they don't know what they're doing...

1) Every young boy thinks he can take on 72 virgins... 3 is an Allah's plenty.

2) They're after fumbling virgins? I'll take the experienced ladies, thank you.

3) At 72 virgins per, how long is the waiting list in paradise to fill all the martyr orders?

:D

[Dave1001]

A great and interesting thread. Before reading it, I feared it would contain the broad brush portrayals of all muslims as "enemy" that I've seen in other threads. But my views mirror the other posters here: most muslims are average shmoes with average shmoe concerns, and in principle it's as possible to reconcile islam with Enlightenment notions of rule of law and good governance as it is to reconcile the other major religions. Thanks all for making me feel less intellectually lonely here :)

[Foster Zygote]

I've come across this view and I recognize it as a factor, but I think the social pressure of a more civilized world has a stronger influence on a religion than its leaders and religious interpretations.

Actually I should give it more credit than that. The antidote for us was the Renaissance and secular humanism. I don't know how to reconcile the beginning of these intellectual movements on what was the strongest reasons involved, but I do know that social pressure has a lot to do with the reasonability of religions in the 1st world. My reasoning does show why civilized Muslims are just as humane as the rest, but I admit I don't really know the technical reasons or the history of the Middle East to submit a reason why they never intellectually evolved as we did.



Yes, this is the direction I was going. I don't think their education was sufficient to encourage critical thinking on their morals and ethics. I think their education still allowed a dogmatic approach to philosophical and philanthropic questions.

I was thinking to say that these educations took place in an environment that was still dogmatic, but I don't know where these people studied.

Yeah. If Moody Bible Institute or Bob Jones University gave out degrees in EE, ME or computer programming (do they?) I'd hardly expect the graduates of those courses to be less indoctrinated into Christian dogma than any other fundamentalist.

[blutoski]

I've come across this view and I recognize it as a factor, but I think the social pressure of a more civilized world has a stronger influence on a religion than its leaders and religious interpretations.

During Mohammed's rule, the Arabic world was just as civilized - if not more. Europe was in chaos. Arabia simply had the bad luck of a monotheology with one founder's lineage, and no room for debate.



Actually I should give it more credit than that. The antidote for us was the Renaissance and secular humanism.

These existed in the West before the Renaissance. Technically, the Renaissance was the re-discovery of these ideas, not the invention of them. So, the question is: these ideas were available in Arabia... why were they suppressed differently? Again, Rushdie and Warack return to the principles that while blasphemy was tolerated in the West (the Inquisition was a very late development) no such tolerance ever existed in Islam.




I don't know how to reconcile the beginning of these intellectual movements on what was the strongest reasons involved, but I do know that social pressure has a lot to do with the reasonability of religions in the 1st world. My reasoning does show why civilized Muslims are just as humane as the rest, but I admit I don't really know the technical reasons or the history of the Middle East to submit a reason why they never intellectually evolved as we did.

Well, they had every opportunity. Arabia/Babylon/Persia was not isolated: it was connected to Greece, Rome, and Egypt, as well as India and China. What appears to have been relevant was that the brief period of theological debate came abruptly and violently to an end, and has never re-emerged.




Yes, this is the direction I was going. I don't think their education was sufficient to encourage critical thinking on their morals and ethics. I think their education still allowed a dogmatic approach to philosophical and philanthropic questions.

I was thinking to say that these educations took place in an environment that was still dogmatic, but I don't know where these people studied.

My understanding is that they were educated in the US and UK. In the case of the London bombers, some were even born in the target country.



Just to return to the subject of the OP: there is every evidence that the masses in Islam are suppressed on a daily basis with regards to how they are expected to behave. None can even privately voice dissent against their governments or religious establishment (in some countries, this is the same thing). Iran has a frightening history of using children to identify dissenting parents.

I'll give you an example: my friend came here from Iran shortly after the revolution, and he told me a story of a classmate who accidentally exposed his parents, and they were executed. The teacher started to lead the class in Frere Jacques, and he knew the words. This tipped off the teacher, who was a government agent, that the parents were foreign-educated. Since they hadn't registered as such, they were executed as traitors. Another trick is to ask the kids to play cards. Aside from the fact that gambling is a sin, it was a sign that the kids had parents who had been exposed to Western ideas.

This environment is so frightening, that it's impossible to tell what individuals truly think - they mistrust everybody. It is not unlike living under the SS or in the old Comintern, and that's not a coincidence - they learned these tricks from us. (Saddam looked like he came straight from a casting call for the role of Stalin)

[Antiquehunter]

Having lived in Afghanistan for three years, I have had the experience of being introduced to Afghan families on a number of occasions.

I have yet to meet a non-Muslim Afghan. Even the diaspora returning from the US or Europe are devout Muslims.

The Muslim faith is completely entrenched throughout the Afghan's existence. Their schools are all based in religion, Islamic studies is a core part of every curriculum I've seen. (Some of my colleagues are working in the Education area.) Mosques are used to disseminate information to the public on a routine basis - since there are no effective TV, radio or print mediums that reach a significant portion of the populace.

I have had a number of interesting conversations with young, moderately-well educated Afghans about religion, and their views of the west and religion in general. They immediately assume I am Christian. On the one occasion I expressed that I was actually an atheist, the initial response was 'Oh - are you also a communist?' After some more discussion, Waheed (my translator) told me that we shouldn't discuss the topic anymore, nor should I tell anyone else of my beliefs, because some people would see it appropriate to kill me for my (non)belief.

This from a very gentle, kind young man, married with one wife and a young son, otherwise intelligent, hardworking and pleasant to be around. I LIKE Waheed - he's a very nice guy. However, he is absolutely unquestioning in his faith, and would view any discussion on different belief systems to be threatening.

Could Waheed be persuaded to blow himself up? I don't know. Its unlikely - he's quite 'switched on', but I couldn't say 'no'. He definitely believes blindly and accepts the word of his immam as the word of god - therefore I think it is possible that under the right circumstances he WOULD engage in a terrorist act. He certainly feels strongly that Islam is the only true faith, that he is entitled to having four wives, that he wants nothing more that to be in a position financially to send his parents to the Hajj and then to go himself, etc...

None of the fundamentalist Xtians I've had the (dis)pleasure of meeting have convinced me that they are capable of doing something overtly EVIL in the name of god. But Waheed and many other muslims I've met in Afghanistan leave me wondering...

[TriangleMan]

I have had a number of interesting conversations with young, moderately-well educated Afghans about religion, and their views of the west and religion in general. They immediately assume I am Christian. On the one occasion I expressed that I was actually an atheist, the initial response was 'Oh - are you also a communist?' After some more discussion, Waheed (my translator) told me that we shouldn't discuss the topic anymore, nor should I tell anyone else of my beliefs, because some people would see it appropriate to kill me for my (non)belief.

This is something that you have to keep in mind. The Qur'an is pretty specific that other People of the Book (Christians & Jews) are to be tolerated to some degree because they do worship Allah, just that they have been deceived by corrupt priests etc who have distorted the holy books. Jesus, Abraham, Moses etc are all considered Prophets by Muslims. Of course Muslims feel that it would be better if Jews & Christians converted to Islam but they are still People of the Book.

On the other hand polytheists and non-believers are condemned. Using strict Qu'ranic interpretation a Muslim should not even be friends with one - I'm not sure about whether you should be killed though. But it does explain why your translator was concerned.

Everyone here assumes I'm Christian (I think it's their 'default' assumption when they see a Caucasian westerner) and I don't go out of my way to tell them otherwise.

[TriangleMan]

These existed in the West before the Renaissance. Technically, the Renaissance was the re-discovery of these ideas, not the invention of them. So, the question is: these ideas were available in Arabia... why were they suppressed differently? Again, Rushdie and Warack return to the principles that while blasphemy was tolerated in the West (the Inquisition was a very late development) no such tolerance ever existed in Islam.

Some literature that I've read refer to the Islamic 'Golden Age' around the 8th-12th centuries when acedemic discussion was tolerated and encouraged. It was during that time that the Greek and Latin works were translated and preserved by Arabic scholars. After that fundamentalism started to creep and so began a slow decline away from science and into purely religious dogma. Just before things completely moved to dogma the Renaissance began and the books moved west - they would likely have been lost by now had they just stayed in the Middle East and Iran.

[Dave1001]

Having lived in Afghanistan for three years, I have had the experience of being introduced to Afghan families on a number of occasions.

I have yet to meet a non-Muslim Afghan. Even the diaspora returning from the US or Europe are devout Muslims.

The Muslim faith is completely entrenched throughout the Afghan's existence. Their schools are all based in religion, Islamic studies is a core part of every curriculum I've seen. (Some of my colleagues are working in the Education area.) Mosques are used to disseminate information to the public on a routine basis - since there are no effective TV, radio or print mediums that reach a significant portion of the populace.

I have had a number of interesting conversations with young, moderately-well educated Afghans about religion, and their views of the west and religion in general. They immediately assume I am Christian. On the one occasion I expressed that I was actually an atheist, the initial response was 'Oh - are you also a communist?' After some more discussion, Waheed (my translator) told me that we shouldn't discuss the topic anymore, nor should I tell anyone else of my beliefs, because some people would see it appropriate to kill me for my (non)belief.

This from a very gentle, kind young man, married with one wife and a young son, otherwise intelligent, hardworking and pleasant to be around. I LIKE Waheed - he's a very nice guy. However, he is absolutely unquestioning in his faith, and would view any discussion on different belief systems to be threatening.

Could Waheed be persuaded to blow himself up? I don't know. Its unlikely - he's quite 'switched on', but I couldn't say 'no'. He definitely believes blindly and accepts the word of his immam as the word of god - therefore I think it is possible that under the right circumstances he WOULD engage in a terrorist act. He certainly feels strongly that Islam is the only true faith, that he is entitled to having four wives, that he wants nothing more that to be in a position financially to send his parents to the Hajj and then to go himself, etc...

None of the fundamentalist Xtians I've had the (dis)pleasure of meeting have convinced me that they are capable of doing something overtly EVIL in the name of god. But Waheed and many other muslims I've met in Afghanistan leave me wondering...

This post flies in the face of what we actually know fundamentalist Xtians have done and are currently doing in real time in the world. And your implied claim that every single Afghanistani may have the potential to do something more overtly EVIL in the name of god than any fundamentalist Xian that you've met strains my personal credibility.

[TriangleMan]

Ok, now to the OP.

First I just want to point out that there are a number of different countries in the Islamic world and they are quite different from one another. Afghanistan is not the UAE; Saudi Arabia is not Lebanon; Egypt is nothing like Iran, Bahrain is different from Malaysia. Muslims cannot be painted with one brush.

Secondly, I've noticed the odd time that posters use 'Middle East' in one sentence then talk about somewhere else, like Afghanistan, in the next sentence. Afghanistan is not in the Middle East.

Okay . . .
Why do the Muslims insist on blowing themselves up for their "God"?*
Beats me, but it's not unique to Muslims, other religions have their own fundamentalists who blow people up for whatever reason.
Why do they go to all sorts of extremes to attack the US and Israel?
Creation of Israel displaced Muslim Palistinians?
Israel treats Palistinians poorly?
Multiple wars have been fought between Israel & Muslim neighbours?
Israel took over Jerusalem (I think it's the third holiest city to Muslims after Mecca and Medinah)?

As for the US, if you hate Israel then it's easy to make the jump to hating the US since they heavily support them. Otherwise it could be for other reasons, anti-capitalism or whatever. I don't understand the intracicies myself.
Why do they become enraged when a cartoon appears depicting Muhammed?
I think it's because no one knows what he looked like, and most Muslim groups are big on avoiding idolatry so are against painting any figures, especially Muhammed, since it could lead to worshipping Muhammed instead of Allah. This was a key reason why a lot of historical Islamic art focused on calligraphy instead of painting and sculpture.

I'm sure it didn't help that the Muhammed cartoons also portrayed him in a negative light.

One of my thoughts is that religion is seen in a completely different light in the middle east. Society is centered around religion, and the more into religion you are, the higher up in status you become.
I don't know about other Middle East countries but here status appears to be about who you know and what family you're from. How religious you are isn't a big factor. It's all about connections.

In Muslim society, I think that religion is looked at very differently. I think that maybe wealth and power become less of the driving force for status when compared with religion. Religion is what gets the respect so the more religious you are, the higher status you have and the more respect you get.
Not here it isn't. Money talks. Some Qataris even run into financial trouble because they get into debt trying to 'keep up with the Joneses' as it were. When I pointed this out to my Arabic teacher (an Iraqi) he agreed that more and more were embracing materialism.

What I am suggesting is that maybe some of the radical actions taken by Muslims may be driven by a desire to gain more respect and a higher status in their society. It may not have that much to do with their personal beliefs.
Would definately depend on the country but I wonder if it also has to do with poverty and marginalization of the masses from power.

This also may apply to how people feel towards the U.S. It may start becoming "Cool" to view the U.S. as evil and on a mission to push "our" religion on them. Religion is a way of life in the Middle East, so it is not unlikely to assume that it is treated very differently than it is in America.
America has been pushing Christianity in the Middle East? I don't recall reading anything about that. I'm currently reading a book by Chomsky and his view is that it comes down to whether a country goes along with what the US wants or not. Saudi Arabia does so America doesn't bother it despite it being a totalitarian Muslim monarchy with a human rights record just short of North Korea. Iraq didn't so change had to be made. I couldn't tell you whether that is the driving force or not, just presenting Chomsky's view.
Like I said that is all pure speculation but it would be nice if someone on this board has been over to the middle east and actually been involved in Muslim society who can spread a little more light on how religion in Muslim society is different from religion in the U.S.
Ironically while I'm currently in the Middle East I've haven't spent much time in the US so the comparison would be difficult. Suffice to say that living in Qatar is certainly different but not as constraining as you might think. Some things I feel are better, but some things are worse and I hope that it changes in the future. Saudi Arabia on the other hand . . .

[Merko]

Why do the Muslims insist on blowing themselves up for their "God"?

Well, self-sacrifice is seen as noble in Christian countries too. It's the same thing really. Hollywood movies are full of people being portrayed as heroes by knowingly facing death for the greater good.

I don't think there is anything radically different about Islam in this regards, it's just more extreme.


Why do they go to all sorts of extremes to attack the US and Israel?


Political reasons, not religious. For religious reasons, they would prefer to be at war with Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists or atheists. However, like always, religion is used in war. Every Christian army seems to have field priests. They may put a greater emphasis on it, but again.. it's the same thing.


Why do they become enraged when a cartoon appears depicting Muhammed?


The middle east countries do not promote a culture of tolerance. The norm is that dissenting views are suppressed, for example by forcibly closing down newspapers at the whim of the rulers (perhaps because of some popular outcry, or because it is critical towards the regime, either is common).

I don't think it is based in Islam. Here's a quote from the Koran:
"Keep to forgiveness (O Mohammed), and enjoin kindness, and turn away from the ignorant." (Chapter 7, Verse 199)

So basically, Muhammed says that "ignorant" people (eg those that have not seen the light of Islam) should be disregarded.

However, using a "moral panic" to rally political support is not unknown in the West either. We also have campaigns to ban "offensive" literature etc, often with religious motivations. Once again - it's the same thing, but a bit more extreme.


One of my thoughts is that religion is seen in a completely different light in the middle east. Society is centered around religion, and the more into religion you are, the higher up in status you become.

In our society, religion is seen as something very different. While it is generally looked up upon when you are religious, you are looked at no different for your religious values. In US society, wealth and power are the key influences with regards to status. The more money you have, the more respect you get. The more power you have, the more respect you get.


Uh, I don't see how this qualifies as "completely different". Clearly, money and power gives status also in Muslim countries. But yes, these socities are centered more around religion, so appearing to be religious or appealing to religion to gain political support is more viable. Just like it was in Christian countries in the past, when wars were often openly declared on religious grounds, for example.


You may gain more respect the more violent you become with your "Overwhelming feeling of rage for the cartoon that has depicted Muhammed".


Yes, but it goes both ways. There were also many very religious Muslims who urged their brothers-in-faith to calm down, citing for example the Koran verse I posted above. Of course, these people claim that "turning away" from insult is the more religious, more Muslim way to act.
Funnily enough, one of the infamous Danish cartoons pictured exactly this situation: it featured a number of enraged Muslims, as well as a (religious?) leader, looking at a cartoon and remarking "calm down, it's just a cartoon by an infidel Dane".

[Antiquehunter]

This post flies in the face of what we actually know fundamentalist Xtians have done and are currently doing in real time in the world. And your implied claim that every single Afghanistani may have the potential to do something more overtly EVIL in the name of god than any fundamentalist Xian that you've met strains my personal credibility.

I specified fundamentalist Xtians I HAVE KNOWN and MET, as compared to Afghan Muslims I HAVE KNOWN and MET. I was not making a broad generalization - I was being very specific on purpose. I do not profess to have a read of all Afghan Muslims nor of all fundy Xtians, nor do I have a read of all atheists/agnostics/skeptics.

My post was a personal observation having had perhaps more direct contact with fundy Muslims than many posters. I didn't mean to cause offense.