Hans de Vries Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 This is a thread that should cover the wider range of issue than the ISIS thread. By defeating political Islam I mean either destroying the movement completely or at least weakening it to such a degree that it is not able to attract a significant number of followers, and therefore, unable to seize power anywhere. The main discussion should be global strategy - i.e. the one that can be used on a wide scale. But discussion about "tactical" level (limited to one contry or even a single region of some country) are welcomed as well. The timescale about 2015-2050 - what to do and what not to do. We may also discuss the current "war on terror" and it's consequences - positive and negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airbrush Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Start with a Ministry of Propaganda to get across a slick message with cool music of young men singing heroic songs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Science defeated political Christianity. You should develop science then you can defeat political Islam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans de Vries Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 ... and that's all? I expected a longer and more interesting exchange of ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airbrush Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) Education can help defeat political Islam. Boko Haram, which is often called "Western education is forbidden", is really "Education if forbidden". Religions don't like science and math. When people are well educated in sciences, they become more skeptical of religions, consistent with the "Theory of Santa Claus". Religions do not encourage critical thinking, but rely totally on FAITH, and encourage "group think". Moderate religious people are moderate because they have a healthy agnosticism and are educated so they can see that religion is mostly a social structure and a group delusion for wishful thinking. Freedom of religion is really freedom to live within a delusion. The leaders of ISIS must be fairly intelligent people because they are able to manipulate their sheep. So they are probably skeptical and agnostic about Islam, but they teach their sheep to follow Blind Faith. Edited February 9, 2015 by Airbrush 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink” is an illustration of the concept that control is illusory; you can’t force anyone to agree with your views, you can request, you can persuade but you can’t defeat faith with force. The danger in trying to defeat faith is that you simply reinforce it and in doing so you strengthen the opposition “one often meets ones destiny on the path one chooses to avoid it”. Edited February 9, 2015 by dimreepr 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink” is an illustration of the concept that control is illusory; you can’t force anyone to agree with your views, you can request, you can persuade but you can’t defeat faith with force. The danger in trying to defeat faith is that you simply reinforce it and in doing so you strengthen the opposition “one often meets ones destiny on the path one chooses to avoid it”. We can defeat some people with force. Faith without people doesn't exist. We use force against terrorists and terrorist faith. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 We can defeat some people with force. Only by killing them but that won’t kill the idea or force compliance. Faith without people doesn't exist. Really? We use force against terrorists and terrorist faith. That doesn’t seem to be going so well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Only by killing them but that won’t kill the idea or force compliance. Really? That doesn’t seem to be going so well. Of course animals can have faith but we don't consider them now. Murder of terrorists is more effective than your offers. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Of course animals can have faith but we don't consider them now. What? Murder of terrorists is more effective than your offers. Why? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Why? Because you need to kill terrorist earlier than he/she kills you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Because you need to kill terrorist earlier than he/she kills you. And we come full circle; so what's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 And we come full circle; so what's your point? Your work creates nothing. People continue to kill terrorists when you count the circles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airbrush Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Are you sure that "Political Islam" needs to be defeated? I think you mean how to defeat extreme, militant Islam. Political Islam is about as harmless as the Tea Party. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans de Vries Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) It NEEDS to. Political Islam (at least in it's current form) is not something akin to political Christianity in the US that organizes anti-gay protests and lobbies for creationism. Political Islam actively kills everyone who dares to oppose it - and that's how it's practiced in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan etc. That's why any coexistence with this ideology simply isn't an option. It must be smashed. Return to 1950-60s style secularism is the bare minimum that the Middle East should acheive. Back then most people did not care about religion and Islamism was limited to a very tight circle of theologians and was not a popular movement. Edited February 10, 2015 by Hans de Vries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Is this something specific to Islam, or rather a trait of authoritarian Governments? I.e. would a secular authoritarian dictatorship preferable? If so, for whom? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans de Vries Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) My hierarchy looks something like that Islamist dictatorship<secular dictatorship<secular democracy Secular authocracy is of course preferable. But the process of "defeating" cannot consist solely of replacing one political elite with a different one. There must be a situation that the overwhelming majority (>95%) of people in Muslim counries actually supports democracy, freedom of religion and all other things associated with civilized societies. Why do theocracies still persist in Saudi Arabia and Iran? Why is Pakistan more theocratic now than it was 60 years ago? That's because nobody in these countries puts enough pressure for changes to start. Neither the masses nor the political elite is interested in any secularization. Edited February 10, 2015 by Hans de Vries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 So from a governmental viewpoint Syria would be a model for that region? How about Lebanon, which is more democratic but has a (disputed) confessional system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans de Vries Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Lebanon is not a good example, it's 40% Christian. Turkey is. Of course it would be best if all of ME turned into France-like states - completely secular, with overwhelming majority of the population being either atheist, agnostic or just nominal believers not caring much about religion at all. Edited February 10, 2015 by Hans de Vries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) I am not sure what you mean, Lebanon has religious (including but not exclusive influence in its politics, though to lesser degree than other countries in the middle east but to higher degree than Turkey. And again, Syria is a secular state, so should other countries in that region aspire to that? But if we expand on the religious elements: According to a Pew poll In the US, asking people whether the bible or will of people should take precedent in laws, 63% responded with the people's will. This is quite a bit off from 95%. Also, 32% responded that the bible should take precedence. Yet there is obviously no denying that the US is a free, democratic state. Also, as has been mentioned a few times in various posts here, a large majority of Muslims responded that religious freedom is a good thing, though the values vary significantly between countries. My point is there is not a singular thing like political Islam. In different countries the influence of Islam on politics, law and society is very different, and if we conflate everything into a simple term all we are discussing is a caricature of the real thing. For example, Turkey is overwhelmingly Muslim, is a secular state and as such has severe restrictions on religious freedom (GRI 6.4, the higher the more restrictive). On the overall democracy index it is somewhere in the middle worldwide (rank 88 2012, between Sri Lanka and Ecuador; as reference,Norway is 1, France 28, Russia is 122, Singapore 81, Serbia 66). Turkey also has abolished Islamic law courts. Lebanon has more religious freedom than Turkey, is less secular and score worse on the democracy index (99, between Bosnia and Cambodia). Its legal system is based on Civil, Sharia and Ottoman laws. Similar to Lebanon the secularity of Israel is ambiguous, at best. There are laws drawn from orthodox Judaism and Sharia Laws that are applied to Muslim citizen. Again, undoubtedly due to the unique elements of this country. Freedom of religion is low (6.5), but democracy is relatively high (rank 37, between Chile and India). Syria is secular, but again went a different route than Turkey. It combined secularism with a strongly authoritarian system and as consequence has some of the least religious freedom and democracy in the world. Although it should be stated that current affairs are skewing the results a fair bit. Obviously we also have secular states with low degrees for religious freedom and democracy such as China (GRI 8.6, democracy rank 142 and Russia (GRI: 7.7, 122) to add another issue on top. Or we can move out of the Middle East and add Indonesia, another predominantly Islamic state with low religious freedom, but somewhat decent democracy (between Argentina and Bulgaria). So just using a few (two, actually) values we see a bit of a spread in countries in the Middle East and it is only getting more complicated once we delve into politics and laws. Elements such as freedom of religion, human rights and democracy are realized in different patterns based on historic, societal and socioeconomic challenges and realities. Even if we look at a single aspect such as gender equality, things are complicated. The voting right for women was in some middle eastern countries established pretty fast, especially compared to many European countries (if accounting when voting was established, even for men). And looking at Pew polls the majority of asked Muslims (polled countries Lebanon, Turkey, Pakistan, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan) state that women should have the same rights as men. Highest number Lebanon and Turkey (93/84%) Lowest Egypt (58%). When asked whether men are better political leaders 32%! in Lebanon Agreed, 42% in Egypt, with the highest numbers in Pakistan and Tunisia (75%/62%). There are also hugely mixed attitudes in the decision of who should choose the husband, family, women or both, ranging from 11% -85% women, 5-59% family and 9-49% both. So the spread on even a single issue is huge, how can we assume the same situation in every region and, even worse, propose the same solution? Sure there are certain things that will always work. Better access to education, improvement of socioeconomic situation, improve urbanization and overall standard of living. Promote regional and political stability. The whole works, really. Edited February 11, 2015 by CharonY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans de Vries Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 No amount of sharia law in the legal system is acceptable. I want to see 100% secular countries all around the Middle East. By secular I mean countries in which most of the population either does not believe in God or are only nominal believers and in which religion plays no role in politics. So I want to see liberals/libertarians and leftists dominating the political scene. No salafists, no Muslim Brotherhoods and no no clashes between so-and-so branches of clergy like in Iran. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 You are aware that this isn't true for Western countries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans de Vries Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) Europeans are barely religious. The most irreligious places in the world are located in Europe (former DDR, Czech Republic, Nordic countries). Maybe we're making things more complicated than they really are? I started this thread to discuss possible strategies of defeating Islamism. So far we're discussing about what exactly constitutes secularism. Aren't these two a bit different? CharonY, what's exactly your opinion on Sharia law? Not legal systems that employ elements of sharia bu sharia as a whole, in it's purest form. Edited February 12, 2015 by Hans de Vries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Well, in the EU about 50% state that they believe in god and a further 2xish% in some supernatural powers.Atheists are at around 20%. I would not state that to be barely. Also religion does have influence, ranging from parties that cater to certain confessions to certain limitations of freedom such as same-sex marriage in certain countries. There is the issue with Church taxes in Germany for example. Also the role of church in ethical issues including abortions. Claiming that Europe is not religious n any way is simply not true. Also note that the lack of religion in some Eastern countries was not the result of Western enlightenment, but the influence of Soviets. Even so traditionally very religious countries such as Poland believe from 80-95% in a god. While the influence in religion is waning on average it is still going strong in many countries (and has made a comeback in some cases). It is also used in popular politics quite a bit while referring to European vague Judeo-Christian values. So yeah, you are off the mark a bit again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) No amount of sharia law in the legal system is acceptable. I want to see 100% secular countries all around the Middle East. By secular I mean countries in which most of the population either does not believe in God or are only nominal believers and in which religion plays no role in politics. So I want to see liberals/libertarians and leftists dominating the political scene. No salafists, no Muslim Brotherhoods and no no clashes between so-and-so branches of clergy like in Iran. This reminds me of Jon Stewart’s “bullshit mountain” where they try to solve complex problems with simple incorrect answers. Solving this problem with force, however shocking and awe inspiring will simply exacerbate the problem in the long run; a conquered people are never at peace. India rose up with force against the British the following retribution was bloody and savage (arguably more so than IS). It was only the emergence of a learned man who advocated peaceful protest that the problem was solved; leaving behind a stable democracy. The same pattern was mirrored in South Africa, with the same result. Can the allies honestly say they left a stable democracy in either Afghanistan or Iraq? “Violence begat violence” only through understanding does this problem have the same result as India and South Africa. Edited February 12, 2015 by dimreepr 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now