Where do you see Islamofascism in 50 years?

[JME2]

I don't want to say that there is no answer, but I certainly don't know what it is.

The Islamofacists, from a political/religious standpoint, are stuck in the 13th century. They cannot distinguish between secular and religious, while our whole way of life is based around the distinction. They are religious fanatics and do not care for themselves, their wives, or their children...except when it suits them to do so (i.e. makes us look bad). I guess I'm uncreative, but I don't see foresee any solution that accomplishes the aims of both the US and the Islamofascist movement.

That's the problem with conservatism in general and one of Trek's central messages: In order for a culture to grow and prosper, it has to be willing to tolerate change and new ideas. The Me as a whole does not - and neither does the Bushies; well, yes they do -- simply a return to a theocratic world that would appall even the Founding Fathers.

[Stuart Mackey]

Things will head in the direction of Iran.
One thing is clear, you cannot expect some of these nations, with these attitudes, to simply wake up one day crying 'Democracy, Democracy!' any more than democracy 'just happned' in the west.
The attitudes we have are the end result, in many respects, of hundreds of years of political and social evolution, so why expect anything more from the islamic parts of the world?.

[JME2]

Things will head in the direction of Iran.
One thing is clear, you cannot expect some of these nations, with these attitudes, to simply wake up one day crying 'Democracy, Democracy!' any more than democracy 'just happned' in the west.
The attitudes we have are the end result, in many respects, of hundreds of years of political and social evolution, so why expect anything more from the islamic parts of the world?.

That's where the Bushies are going about this the wrong way. It takes time for change to take place and they're trying to do in before Election Day. Jackasses.

[Rogue 9]

I know one guy who's thrown his hands up and said "Crusade." I'm not about to go for that while there's any other way (and probably not for a good while afterwards), but I'm running out of other ways in a big hurry.

[Joe]

Things will head in the direction of Iran.
One thing is clear, you cannot expect some of these nations, with these attitudes, to simply wake up one day crying 'Democracy, Democracy!' any more than democracy 'just happned' in the west.
The attitudes we have are the end result, in many respects, of hundreds of years of political and social evolution, so why expect anything more from the islamic parts of the world?.

The problem is, Islam is far more prone to theocracy than western Christianity. While I won't argue that Christianity is inherently anti-theocratic, it doesn't have a history of theocracy on the same level as Islamic theocracy; as powerful as medieval Popes were, they never lorded over massive empires like the caliphs did. For a lot of Muslims, it seems that the problem is not so much that they don't favor a separation of church and state, it's that they don't even acknowledge the fact that they CAN be separated. Islam is the state, and vice versa, and ne'er shall the twain be split. Islam was theocratic at birth, with its founder being a military leader who conquered territory and established Islamic dominance over it. But neither Jesus nor his disciples ever ruled anything.

[Perinquus]

The problem is, Islam is far more prone to theocracy than western Christianity. While I won't argue that Christianity is inherently anti-theocratic, it doesn't have a history of theocracy on the same level as Islamic theocracy; as powerful as medieval Popes were, they never lorded over massive empires like the caliphs did. For a lot of Muslims, it seems that the problem is not so much that they don't favor a separation of church and state, it's that they don't even acknowledge the fact that they CAN be separated. Islam is the state, and vice versa, and ne'er shall the twain be split. Islam was theocratic at birth, with its founder being a military leader who conquered territory and established Islamic dominance over it. But neither Jesus nor his disciples ever ruled anything.

Actually, I must make a small correction to you here. What you say is pretty accurate, as far as western Europe and Catholicism goes. The existence of a pope who was separate from the monarchs of the various states that sprang up after Rome's fall (and who spent most of the Middle Ages vying with them for power) planted the seed for the separation of church and state. It was possible for western thinkers to conceive of spiritual and temporal power being separate with this situation. But we have a western-oriented education. Much of eastern Europe was controlled by the Byzantine Empire, and that state could be considered a theocracy. The Byzantines had a figure who, in the orthodox church, roughly corresponded to the pope as the spiritual head of the church - the patriarch of Constantinople (after the final break between the Catholic and Orthodox churches in the 11th cenury that is). But unlike the pope, the patriarch was firmly subordinate to the temporal monarch, and in fact was appointed by him (contrast this with the Catholic cardinals' choosing the next pope from among themselves when the old one dies). And the Byzantine emperor was looked upon as being God's vice-regent on earth. Religion and politics were inextricably mixed in the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantines were a very religious people. It dominated their daily lives. Even the common people were so caught up in theology that St. Gregory of Nyssa complained that if you asked someone the price of bread, he told you that the Father was greater than the Son, and the Son subordinate to him; and if you asked if your bath was ready, the answer came that the Son was created from nothing.

There was a time when Christianity had its aggressive, militant fanatics, who were willing and eager to spread the faith by force. You may still find a few of these, but they're considered freaks nowadays. What really leavened Christianity was the Renaissance and the Reformation. The Reformation helped because it broke up the single, dominating religious authority of the Catholic church, and the Renaissance because it intoduced humanism and its values into western Europe. The humanism of the Renaissance had a profound cultural influence on western European thought and attitudes toward religion. I think it will take a similar cultural shift in the Muslim world to eradicate the Islamofascists, the way the crusaders and holy inquisitors of Europe were eradicated. The problem is that conditions in the Islamic world, especially the foreigness to their way of thinking of the concept of a church/state separation, are far less suited for the rise of the kind of humanistic influence that had that effect in western Europe.

[Joe]

Those are all very good points. But what I was trying to say was that unlike Islam, Christianity does not have a clearly defined position on what the relationship of church and state should be. The relationship has taken different forms throughout the history of the religion. Jesus left it in the air, with the whole "render unto Caesar" business. And thus reform came more easily, because it wasn't set in stone the way it was (and still is) with Islam.

[Sarevok]

In my opinion Islamic fundermentalism will subside in 50 years. It is a temporary phenomenon that arose in response to perceived US attrocacies and that of their US allies. If things go well the US will correct it's ways and so there will be no need for fundermentalist groups.

[Joe]

In my opinion Islamic fundermentalism will subside in 50 years. It is a temporary phenomenon that arose in response to perceived US attrocacies and that of their US allies.

You can back up this assertion, then?

If things go well the US will correct it's ways and so there will be no need for fundermentalist groups.

There's no need for Islamic fundamentalism, or any kind of religious fundamentalism, period, no matter how bad the U.S. is or is perceived to be. It's bad and it fucks up society.

[Perinquus]

In my opinion Islamic fundermentalism will subside in 50 years. It is a temporary phenomenon that arose in response to perceived US attrocacies and that of their US allies. If things go well the US will correct it's ways and so there will be no need for fundermentalist groups.

Yes, it's all the fault of the evil American empire...

[Gil Hamilton]

Those are all very good points. But what I was trying to say was that unlike Islam, Christianity does not have a clearly defined position on what the relationship of church and state should be. The relationship has taken different forms throughout the history of the religion. Jesus left it in the air, with the whole "render unto Caesar" business. And thus reform came more easily, because it wasn't set in stone the way it was (and still is) with Islam.

Actually, the "render unto Caesar what is Caesars, render unto God what is Gods" thing was very much anti-government in favor of religion. After all, what isn't Gods?

[Howedar]

Control of the Empire, presumably.

[Rogue 9]

Those are all very good points. But what I was trying to say was that unlike Islam, Christianity does not have a clearly defined position on what the relationship of church and state should be. The relationship has taken different forms throughout the history of the religion. Jesus left it in the air, with the whole "render unto Caesar" business. And thus reform came more easily, because it wasn't set in stone the way it was (and still is) with Islam.

Actually, the "render unto Caesar what is Caesars, render unto God what is Gods" thing was very much anti-government in favor of religion. After all, what isn't Gods?

19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

How is that anti-government? A command to pay your taxes is anti-government?

[MKSheppard]

Three options:

1.) We win the GWOT through conventional means.

2.) They win and we collapse into a 7th Century Theocracy.

3.) The Big One becomes fact, and not fiction.

Personally, I think a country somewhere is going to get nuked into ash,
after some terrorists try something "fun" with some WMD.

[PainRack]

3 pronged methods.

1. Reduce Al Queada and other localised terror rings ability to mount terror strikes through a combination of passive means(increased security measures, the use of technology to monitor communications) and active measures(attacking Al Queda training camps, smashing finanicial links, targeting recruitment). This is a measure to buy time and prevent terrorists from increasing in stature and power.

2. Reduce Al Queda and other extremist fundamentalist appeal. This is through a variety of measures ranging from foreign policy to economic measures. Key to these will be resolving of the Palestine conflict through a permanent peace settlement that can allow normality to return to the region, the elevation of modern Islamic states to the forefront of politics, education and economic aid for such countries, in order to assist them to elevate their social and economic status, propangda in Western nations to sustain the course, cultural exchanges to increase contact between various groups of people, etc etc etc. It has been noted that fundamentalism appeals mostly to the lowly educated. As such, education, and the teaching of modern math, science, geography and the like is neccesary. This will probably be nothing more than aiding receptive nations to start off their education programmes.

3. Leave them alone. That's right. The US can't win the war on terror. The British can't win it. Nobody, except the Muslim community can. Constant intervention only aflames the situation further, and thanks to the bad PR image that Bush has worsened, ties to the US can only weaken moderate and other non-fundamentalist appeal.

[RedImperator]

In my opinion Islamic fundermentalism will subside in 50 years. It is a temporary phenomenon that arose in response to perceived US attrocacies and that of their US allies. If things go well the US will correct it's ways and so there will be no need for fundermentalist groups.

Tell me, what percieved US atrocities were al-Wahib responding to, seeing as he converted the Saud tribe in 1763, thirteen years before the Declaration of Independence?

[CJvR]

IMPO the Islamic fundamentalism is fueled mainly by the faliure of the Arab states. The Arab world produce nothing, invent nothing and achieves nothing. The rejection of the western ideas that have been proven to work have led the Arabs down several dead ends - nationalism, nationalsocialism, communism and now fundamentalism.

Iran is actually a very intresting and hopeful example. In Iran an increasingly unpopular theocracy is resorting to ever more desperate means to oppress it's population, if this regime should fall as seems ever more likely it should deflate the attraction to fundamentalism.

Israel and the US are mainly excuses not reasons for the problems in the ME, infact if neither the US or Israel had anything to do with the ME the regimes there would have to invent them - or face the dreaded spectre of actual serious reform. Until the Arab world is willing to take a step forward nothing will improve, quite the contrary the Arabs will simply lose even more ground to the rest of the world.

How to deal with the death worshiping maniacs of A-Q and it's mutant offspring? Well there really only is one way, kill them before they kill us.

[Tribun]

Well, you can't talk with them.
In thier logic they have to kill everyone who is not a muslim, taking over the world to fully convert it into a Islamic world. Of course that is simple bullshit, and in the rest of the world they are already seen as noth more that totally insane maniacs.

Oh, and concerning thier propaganda, that more and more muslims settle in Europe.... Well, there are some million, that is true. But of the youth, at least half of them had never seen a mosque from the inside, and thier desinterest with Islam couldn't be bigger.... So there is still hope.

[CJvR]

But of the youth, at least half of them had never seen a mosque from the inside, and thier desinterest with Islam couldn't be bigger.... So there is still hope.

Unfortunately the other half have posters of Osama, Omar and Khomeiny hanging on their walls.

[Tribun]

But of the youth, at least half of them had never seen a mosque from the inside, and thier desinterest with Islam couldn't be bigger.... So there is still hope.

Unfortunately the other half have posters of Osama, Omar and Khomeiny hanging on their walls.

Can I ask you how you got that idea?

[Gandalf]

I think eventually a terrorist will pull another 9/11. That will cause another "War on Terror" which will lead to another asskicking somewhere in the ME.

Repeat until someone gives up.

[CJvR]

Can I ask you how you got that idea?

There are numerous reports about the rise of fundamentalism in second generation immigrants, particukary in France. Rather ironic since the parents in many cases fled from the fundamentalists.

[Beowulf]

One of the biggest problems is that the Koran isn't just a religious text, but also a text on government. The prophet Mohammad can not be wrong, and therefore the system of government he created is perfect. This is in distinct contrast to the Bible, which has no such provision that fundamentalists can point to as proof that someone else is an apostate and a heretic.

[Tribun]

One of the biggest problems is that the Koran isn't just a religious text, but also a text on government. The prophet Mohammad can not be wrong, and therefore the system of government he created is perfect. This is in distinct contrast to the Bible, which has no such provision that fundamentalists can point to as proof that someone else is an apostate and a heretic.

To make it short, they claim for themselves, that they have the ultimate truth?

Yah, right....

As long as they insist to take every letter of the ah-so-holy book as absolute truth, they will be the assholes of the planet.

[Darth Wong]

One of the biggest problems is that the Koran isn't just a religious text, but also a text on government.

Good point; while the Biblical New Testament discourages the union of church and state with the "Let Caesar have what is Caesar's" line (not that George W. Bush seems to have noticed), the Koran makes no distinction between personal religion and state affairs. However, one must wonder how much difference this will really make in practice, as that "Caesar" line was pretty much ineffective at separating church and state for nearly two thousand years.