NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: There is no question but what Islam appeals to a broad range of people world wide. Russia seems to be a prime example, where Muslims now comprise an estimated 16% of the population. The question is: can Islam live in peace with existing governments, particularly secular ones?


The Cross and the Sickle Moon (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/27/weekinreview/27islam.html?th&emc=th)


By STEVEN LEE MYERS
Published: November 27, 2005
RUSSIA is a Slavic nation, and historically an Orthodox Christian one. But it is also Islamic, and since the fall of the Soviet Union 14 years ago, Islam has grown increasingly visible and influential.

There are an estimated one million Muslims in Moscow, the most of any European city, though the onion domes of Russian Orthodoxy dominate the cityscape.

This is worrisome to some Slavic Russians, who fear not only Muslim extremists, but the possibility that Russia could one day become a majority Muslim state.

Still, if the threat - and reality - of conflict exists, it is also true that in many places, Muslim and Christian cultures are peacefully adapting to each other.

Islam spread into what became the Russian Empire in the 10th century - 66 years ahead of Christianity, said Ravil Gainutdin, chairman of Russia's Council of Muftis. "Islam is a religion of native peoples in Russia and a traditional religion of this country," he said.

There are now an estimated 14 million to 23 million Muslims in Russia, as much as 16 percent of the population. They are in the majority in Russia's turbulent south, but more live quietly in places like Tatarstan and Bashkortostan on the Volga River, and in virtually every city.

Given the historic domination of the church, the czars and then Communism, Islam here has adopted an essentially Russian character. Believers pick and chose tenets of faith to follow, just as Orthodox Christians do. Even in predominantly Muslim cities, for example, alcohol flows abundantly.

"No one challenges me if I drink coffee during Ramadan," Murat Khokon, a physics professor at the University of Kabardino-Balkariya, a southern republic, said in an interview over an afternoon coffee during Ramadan. "It is between me and God. This is the culture we have here."

Even so, fundamentalism - sometimes called "pure" Islam - has made inroads among those who lacked access to the faith's teachings under Communism.

The Kremlin, increasingly, has sought to control Islam, persecuting those who worship outside state-sanctioned "official" mosques. A crackdown in Nalchik, Kabardino-Balkariya's capital, closed six mosques and many Muslims were harassed. In October, at least 136 people died when armed men attacked police and security posts in what their relatives said was a revolt against official abuses.

"Russia," said Ali Pshigotyzhev, whose son was arrested following the fighting, "was not ready for the rebirth of Islam."

Russia does indeed have a high muslim population. But doesn't America and other western countries? I think that this isn't nessecarilly a bad thing but rather and example of how Russia is becoming more diverse.

COMMENTARY: There is no question but what Islam appeals to a broad range of people world wide. Russia seems to be a prime example, where Muslims now comprise an estimated 16% of the population. The question is: can Islam live in peace with existing governments, particularly secular ones?

I don't see there being much of a problem as long as we allow everyone to mantain their own culture (assuming it doesn't harm anyone obviously).

I don't see there being much of a problem as long as we allow everyone to mantain their own culture (assuming it doesn't harm anyone obviously).


That worked well in France. :rolleyes:

Russia does indeed have a high muslim population. But doesn't America and other western countries? I think that this isn't nessecarilly a bad thing but rather and example of how Russia is becoming more diverse.


True, but Muslim extremists (and extremists only) will probably not take it the way you and I see it. They will probably take it as the Muslim people "disrespecting" Islam and moving into an "Infidel" country, as they have said in America. This might, and I repeat MIGHT lead to some attacks, whether on the Russian people, the Russian government, or the Russian Muslims.

Islam is one of those religions that requires a practical vacuum of reason arround it in order to survive.. Western societies tend to kill it, or at least dilute it, which is why Muslim countries generally censor non-Islamic input (although this often leads their kids to pursue taboo influences all the more.) Russia is a country in decay, which may lead some to find community in severe religion in the short-term.. but in time, Islam will be crushed basically anyplace where it isn't enforced along ethnic lines.

Islam is one of those religions that requires a practical vacuum of reason arround it in order to survive.. Western societies tend to kill it, or at least dilute it, which is why Muslim countries generally censor non-Islamic input (although this often leads their kids to pursue taboo influences all the more.) Russia is a country in decay, which may lead some to find community in severe religion in the short-term.. but in time, Islam will be crushed basically anyplace where it isn't enforced along ethnic lines.

I'm sorry, but I can't think of a polite way to say this: your post is full of crap.

Islam, like any religion or ideology, is mutable. It can evolve. In many countries in the 'west', Islam survives as a benevolent and unifying force in the community. Western societies do not tend to kill or dilute it. Some western societies are killing Muslims wholesale, but that's another story...Islam is thriving in many places, because no religion is enforced along any lines,ethnic or otherwise.
By the way, Russia is not decaying. It is changing.

I'm sorry, but I can't think of a polite way to say this: your post is full of crap.

Islam, like any religion or ideology, is mutable. It can evolve. In many countries in the 'west', Islam survives as a benevolent and unifying force in the community. Western societies do not tend to kill or dilute it. Some western societies are killing Muslims wholesale, but that's another story...Islam is thriving in many places, because no religion is enforced along any lines,ethnic or otherwise.
By the way, Russia is not decaying. It is changing.

Amen, nice points. Besides, some people are confused of change and think that it means decaying.

COMMENTARY: There is no question but what Islam appeals to a broad range of people world wide. Russia seems to be a prime example, where Muslims now comprise an estimated 16% of the population. The question is: can Islam live in peace with existing governments, particularly secular ones?
Islam must live in peace with the rest of us. Anything less should not be tolerated.

Islam is one of those religions that requires a practical vacuum of reason arround it in order to survive.. Western societies tend to kill it, or at least dilute it, which is why Muslim countries generally censor non-Islamic input (although this often leads their kids to pursue taboo influences all the more.) Russia is a country in decay, which may lead some to find community in severe religion in the short-term.. but in time, Islam will be crushed basically anyplace where it isn't enforced along ethnic lines.
Good point. This is one of the major reasons that most Islamic communities in Western nations don't insist on Sharia. It's only after Muslims become a majority within a country or region that Sharia becomes the law of the land.

By the way, Russia is not decaying. It is changing.

:p

Alright, you win. You've rendered me incapable of typing much of a responce.. convulsive laughter kills my typing skills..

Well we all have our problems. Russia needs to protect its own unique culture and at the same time nurture its Muslim citizens. Might be hard...

Islam must live in peace with the rest of us. Anything less should not be tolerated.

And, obviously according to that point, people must live in peace with Islam. Anything less should not be tolerated.


Yet, we as a whole people, are disrespecting the Muslims, whether it be from racism to secret hatred. They've done nothing to us, and yet we still hate them because some of the false Muslims (the terrorists, who are like Christian fundies, not really the religion they claim to be) done stupid as shit things.

Not saying select people don't do this, but we as a WHOLE do this, unfortunatly.

Somehow I feel that plugging my own thread here is perfectly appropriate. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=456233) And I am being ironic, of course.

Islam is a threat to Democracy and must be destroyed in all forms.

Like Communism and Nazism Islam will be smashed to bits and left on the garbage pile of abandoned totalitarian philosophies.

Then we will turn our attentions to the even MORE evil religion of Christianity...

Islam is a threat to Democracy and must be destroyed in all forms.

Like Communism and Nazism Islam will be smashed to bits and left on the garbage pile of abandoned totalitarian philosophies.

Then we will turn our attentions to the even MORE evil religion of Christianity...

Looks like you have unresolved issues...

And, obviously according to that point, people must live in peace with Islam. Anything less should not be tolerated.
Makes a good argument for "the rule of law," don't it! :D

Russia is a country in decay, which may lead some to find community in severe religion in the short-term.. but in time, Islam will be crushed basically anyplace where it isn't enforced along ethnic lines.

What do you mean by Russia is a country in decay?

True, but Muslim extremists (and extremists only) will probably not take it the way you and I see it. They will probably take it as the Muslim people "disrespecting" Islam and moving into an "Infidel" country, as they have said in America. This might, and I repeat MIGHT lead to some attacks, whether on the Russian people, the Russian government, or the Russian Muslims.


Heh, good luck with that. I think that they'll be in for a bit of suprise, considering the differences between Putin and Chirac. Especially with the way Putin has been moving away from Democracy over the past few years and generally acting like his old KGB self, Russia isn't a safe place for dissent, especially the violent kind.

Islam is one of those religions that requires a practical vacuum of reason arround it in order to survive.. Western societies tend to kill it, or at least dilute it, which is why Muslim countries generally censor non-Islamic input (although this often leads their kids to pursue taboo influences all the more.) Russia is a country in decay, which may lead some to find community in severe religion in the short-term.. but in time, Islam will be crushed basically anyplace where it isn't enforced along ethnic lines.


Actually, Islam is the logical progression of western monotheistic thought. It is the end of the line for a monotheistic philosophy. I mean, if you actually take the time to pay attention, the Koran makes a hell of alot more sense than the Bible. It has fewer internal contradictions than Chistianity and is generally more open to secular ideas. The vast majority of the time that Islam has existed, it has existed as a civilizing force in the regions it appears. Unfortunately, like all religions that fetishize obediance and conversion, it has period when radical literalists take over and do rediculous things. Just sit back and think about what the Christian church was doing 1500 years after it's prophet died. The problem in both cases wasn't the religion, but rather the uses it was put to. At issue is the use of a philosophy to justify tyranny.

Sure, Islam is scary because it isn't as familiar as Jaysus, but make no mistake, its the second verse of the same song. Thats the problem with monotheism, any monotheistic faith is going to be custom made for totalitarian uses. You have a single God, generally drawn as the father of all that is, a God that demands respect and obediance. Since monotheistic religions tend to be more advanced, they tend to have complex enough theology that there exists a need for priests, for men who have a more direct line to God than their brothers. Finally, monothestic religions tend to grow within small subgroups of societies, so they have all sorts of nice little moral and cultural distinctions which allow adherants (and evangelists) to cultivate an "Us vs. Them" mentality. All those books, all that theology, all those rules, gives anyone with an idea enough words to dig justification from. Put all those elements together, and eventually you'll find someone either shrewd enough to game the system (Constantine and King James come to mind) or crazy enough to believe that they're God's own chosen.

That worked well in France. :rolleyes:

No, the French were trying to use Integration, what I described was Multi-Culturalism and it's working pretty well in England.

Islam is a threat to Democracy and must be destroyed in all forms.

Like Communism and Nazism Islam will be smashed to bits and left on the garbage pile of abandoned totalitarian philosophies.

Then we will turn our attentions to the even MORE evil religion of Christianity...

RUN!!! The Christian Uber-Death Dealing Laser-Emiting Secretpolice (C.U.D.D.L.E.S for short) will hunt you down for your eloquent and well researched views!!! Wait, they're coming for me!!! ARGHHHHH!!!!!

*sound of door being kicked down and brutal laser-beaming combined with organ music*

That worked well in France. :rolleyes:

France was because the french majority are racists who would not allow true integration of muslims into the general community via jobs. Hence you have pissed off, un-employed people who suffer racial discrimination.

No, the French were trying to use Integration, what I described was Multi-Culturalism and it's working pretty well in England.

It works pretty well in Australia too.

Society is useless. It cultivates ignorance. Religion only makes society more useless and ignorant.

It's only after Muslims become a majority within a country or region that Sharia becomes the law of the land.

Turkey

*coff*

Oh .... Indonesia

2 of the largest Muslim countries in the world. Turkey abolished sharia and Indonesia has very few laws based in sharia.

[QUOTE=Eutrusca]COMMENTARY: There is no question but what Islam appeals to a broad range of people world wide. Russia seems to be a prime example, where Muslims now comprise an estimated 16% of the population. The question is: can Islam live in peace with existing governments, particularly secular ones?

[\QUOTE]

Can Christianity live in peace with governments?

The answer is Yes any religion can exist in any nation, barring extremists of those religions and/or adherents who can not accept that the country views and laws do not always reflect their views.

Islam is one of those religions that requires a practical vacuum of reason arround it in order to survive.. Western societies tend to kill it, or at least dilute it, which is why Muslim countries generally censor non-Islamic input (although this often leads their kids to pursue taboo influences all the more.) Russia is a country in decay, which may lead some to find community in severe religion in the short-term.. but in time, Islam will be crushed basically anyplace where it isn't enforced along ethnic lines.
Fundamentalist Christianity can have the same thing said about it.

Turkey

*coff*

Oh .... Indonesia

2 of the largest Muslim countries in the world. Turkey abolished sharia and Indonesia has very few laws based in sharia.

Don't try and bring logic into this, it's completely futile.

No, the French were trying to use Integration, what I described was Multi-Culturalism and it's working pretty well in England.
You must be joking. Britain is currently on the brink of internal implosion and ethnic disintegration. How is it working well here?

Russia has major problems of internal ethnic divisions. Religious divisions may further worsen situations within. If you think France was bad, wait till you see an explosion in Russia. Russians tend to be more nationalist and the state is definitely more powerful.

Integration is indeed necessary. All citizens must respect their host country's culture and accept it, else they should return to their native countries. They should not try and impose their culture over the host one. All that would amount too is indirect colonisation of a nation.

Let us establish these things:
- the "growing" Muslim population in Russia follows a pattern and is limited to Southern regions - diverse and with many facets as they are. The only thing noted there is the creation of "Caucasophobia" and "Islamophobia" (well fitting into the logic of the National-Bolshevik Party and other Nazis). The statement about Russia being "Slavic and Orthodox" compliments imperialists who wanted the territory but not the peoples.
- man drinking coffee during Ramadan vs. Chechen or Kabardin or Tatar guerillero is a much more relevant "clash" than Russia vs. Islam. Before you get the idea that I am a partisan of terrorism in Russia: it is fact that Russian military policy has turned the Chechen etc. conflicts from the national and, indeed, very secular "man drinking coffee"-arena to an outlet for the Islamic terrorists. And there is also this:

The Kremlin's attempt to turn Chechen against Chechen had self-combusted, leaving a separatist movement brimming with internecine rivalry. At one extreme were those "traitors" who would take Moscow's money, and on the other those who sought alliance with internationalised Islamist extremists.
(From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1295478,00.html)

Indeed, Russia's most significant concern is ethnic and national incongruence from within.

No, the French were trying to use Integration, what I described was Multi-Culturalism and it's working pretty well in England. Trevor Philips would disagree… you only have to look at the increasing segregation in the UK to realise that we might be heading for trouble as well.

As to the main point… well, if they're worried about it, are they doing anything for their own side? I'm not knowledgeable about the state of the Orthodox Church in Russia, so I can't comment on whether they can do anything with their own Church to promote it.

Heh, good luck with that. I think that they'll be in for a bit of suprise, considering the differences between Putin and Chirac. Especially with the way Putin has been moving away from Democracy over the past few years and generally acting like his old KGB self, Russia isn't a safe place for dissent, especially the violent kind.

Actually, Islam is the logical progression of western monotheistic thought. It is the end of the line for a monotheistic philosophy. I mean, if you actually take the time to pay attention, the Koran makes a hell of alot more sense than the Bible. It has fewer internal contradictions than Chistianity and is generally more open to secular ideas. The vast majority of the time that Islam has existed, it has existed as a civilizing force in the regions it appears. Unfortunately, like all religions that fetishize obediance and conversion, it has period when radical literalists take over and do rediculous things. Just sit back and think about what the Christian church was doing 1500 years after it's prophet died. The problem in both cases wasn't the religion, but rather the uses it was put to. At issue is the use of a philosophy to justify tyranny.

Sure, Islam is scary because it isn't as familiar as Jaysus, but make no mistake, its the second verse of the same song. Thats the problem with monotheism, any monotheistic faith is going to be custom made for totalitarian uses. You have a single God, generally drawn as the father of all that is, a God that demands respect and obediance. Since monotheistic religions tend to be more advanced, they tend to have complex enough theology that there exists a need for priests, for men who have a more direct line to God than their brothers. Finally, monothestic religions tend to grow within small subgroups of societies, so they have all sorts of nice little moral and cultural distinctions which allow adherants (and evangelists) to cultivate an "Us vs. Them" mentality. All those books, all that theology, all those rules, gives anyone with an idea enough words to dig justification from. Put all those elements together, and eventually you'll find someone either shrewd enough to game the system (Constantine and King James come to mind) or crazy enough to believe that they're God's own chosen.
Excellent points. I've always believed that fundamentalism is a symptom of internal pressures within a religion brought on by the changes that come with growth. As the organization gets bigger and more widespread, it becomes more prone to fragmentation and redefinition. There are always those who will attempt to purge and "purify" and hold the organization together by stopping or reversing change. It never works and it always kills a lot of people.

Exactly, Britain is heading for major trouble the way its going.

I believe Russia is secular to the point that the state has all final says on religious matters.

Excellent points. I've always believed that fundamentalism is a symptom of internal pressures within a religion brought on by the changes that come with growth. As the organization gets bigger and more widespread, it becomes more prone to fragmentation and redefinition. There are always those who will attempt to purge and "purify" and hold the organization together by stopping or reversing change. It never works and it always kills a lot of people.
The same happened within Christianity after all, yet luckily the Church's power waned as religion fragmented in Europe. The Catholic Church relied quite heavily on monarchs, yet many nations which were once catholic became protestant. The Enlightenment and French Revolution did it little help. I doubt that the Muslim world is open to such change though, which is in the end what is needed to destroy fundamentalism.

COMMENTARY: There is no question but what Islam appeals to a broad range of people world wide. Russia seems to be a prime example, where Muslims now comprise an estimated 16% of the population.
And another thing: you seem to believe that the "growth" is due to converting. It is not. It is just demographic decline in the ethnic Russian population.

In your commentary, you bypassed the fact that most of the problems described are social, not political, and following very un-Islamic patterns (drinking and vandalism, mainly). People act antisocial (including against their own religion, at least in theory) because they are (according to investigated cases):
a. young
b. a disadvantaged and prejudiced against minority (doesn't matter which)
c. poor
d. living in crap cities like Samara
Or all of the above.

Can Christianity live in peace with governments?

The answer is Yes any religion can exist in any nation, barring extremists of those religions and/or adherents who can not accept that the country views and laws do not always reflect their views.
Aye, there's the rub. Extremism in all its forms is a bad bad thing, from Islamic and Christian fundamentalism, all the way to the secular Cultural Revolution in China.

The same happened within Christianity after all, yet luckily the Church's power waned as religion fragmented in Europe. The Catholic Church relied quite heavily on monarchs, yet many nations which were once catholic became protestant. The Enlightenment and French Revolution did it little help. I doubt that the Muslim world is open to such change though, which is in the end what is needed to destroy fundamentalism.
Christian Europe wasn't really open to such change either, until after the fact. Hence all that violence and bigotry and all those different churches fighting with each other -- and snippy to this very day.

Unfortunately, I can't find it anywhere, but over 20 years ago, I read an interesting article -- in the NY Times, maybe -- about massive changes happening in Islam in Indonesia. During the 1980s, this was the largest region of growth for Islam through immigration and conversion. Apparently, the way Islam was being practiced there was becoming radically different from the way it was practiced in Mecca, and this was becoming a controversy. Social scientists thought they might be witnessing the start of another period of schism in a major international religion, and they were flocking to the region to observe it (that's what the article was about).

According to anthropologists interviewed for the article, Islam was starting to conform to the native customs of the Indonesian peoples, who not only tolerate but also practice many different religions. Originally, this was (and still is) part of the animist world, and animism allows for "double-faith", which means you can be a Muslim and an animist at the same time. In fact, within animism, you can practice as many religions as you like without problems. Thus, it is common for animists to take up new religions and also to start mixing and matching different parts of various religions to suit themselves -- in other words, editing the religions. This was happening in the region of Indonesia.

Islamic schools and mosques were beginning to incorporate Buddhist meditation practices and to hold ecumenical study programs combining Muslim, Christian and Buddhist texts. Some clerics were even talking about changing the way the Koran is used in teaching.

Not surprisingly, this did not sit well with the leaders back in the Arab world, and they had begun flooding Indonesia with conservative clerics to bring the straying sheep back into the fold, as it were. The social scientists predicted that, if this was the beginning of a schismatic pattern, then we would see a period of increasingly intolerant fundamentalism which would eventually end in a breaking apart of the monolithic Islamic religion into many Islamic sects and sub-religions, just like Christianity.

Unfortunately, if the model holds true, then we can expect this process to take many hundreds of years and to drench the world in bloody warfare almost that entire time.

I've been searching for that article for years. If I ever find it, I'll post it.

Interesting indeed. The problem is Christianity is well entrenched into the Western world, and any attempts of Islam to root itself into the West will be met with fierce opposition. It does indeed not bode well, as any Schism is likely to result into religious warfare, as you have expressed, something which did indeed taint Christianity.

Interesting indeed. The problem is Christianity is well entrenched into the Western world, and any attempts of Islam to root itself into the West will be met with fierce opposition. It does indeed not bode well, as any Schism is likely to result into religious warfare, as you have expressed, something which did indeed taint Christianity.
It taints ALL organized ideaologies, which is why I detest idealogues of every stripe.

I happen to believe that this schismatic pattern is happening, and it is why I've been saying for years that Islamic terrorism has not one blessed thing to do with the non-Muslim west, or even with Israel for that matter. It's an internal problem that is likely inevitable for such large organizations -- and not just religions. We can't stop it. All we can do is try to protect ourselves from being harmed by its fall out.

I don't buy into the idea that Christian-Muslim religious war is inevitable, though. Actually, if you go back far enough, we're all the descendants of animists anyway. Maybe theirs is the better way to go. So why not have Christian-Muslim syncretism?

Aye, there's the rub. Extremism in all its forms is a bad bad thing, from Islamic and Christian fundamentalism, all the way to the secular Cultural Revolution in China.

I wanna see an extremist form of buddhism.It'd be monks sitting there really fuckin meditating,as hard as they can,looking with they're either gonna shit themselves of spontaeneosly reach enlightenment and then shit themselves.

It taints ALL organized ideaologies, which is why I detest idealogues of every stripe.

I happen to believe that this schismatic pattern is happening, and it is why I've been saying for years that Islamic terrorism has not one blessed thing to do with the non-Muslim west, or even with Israel for that matter. It's an internal problem that is likely inevitable for such large organizations -- and not just religions. We can't stop it. All we can do is try to protect ourselves from being harmed by its fall out.

I don't buy into the idea that Christian-Muslim religious war is inevitable, though. Actually, if you go back far enough, we're all the descendants of animists anyway. Maybe theirs is the better way to go. So why not have Christian-Muslim syncretism?
Historic opposition. Christian churches can't even reconcile from within. Imagine how much more difficult reconciling with an external religion would be.

I wanna see an extremist form of buddhism.It'd be monks sitting there really fuckin meditating,as hard as they can,looking with they're either gonna shit themselves of spontaeneosly reach enlightenment and then shit themselves.
Not to suck the fun out of that mental picture, but there is a bit of a problem in Tibet where some sect of monks who believe that one of their dead leaders was a buddha are accusing the Dalai Lama of suppressing their "religion" and claim that the ghost of their dead leader will possess and kill the Dalai Lama, and the Dalai Lama got all snippy with them and said shut the hell up, and they said, oh now we see the violence inherent in the system, etc.

The point is, no religion is immune.

Hell, it was an animist cult that set off that nerve gas attack in the Tokyo subway, because their insane leader said it was religiously necessary.

if Islam had a central unifying figure or authority (like the caliph in the medieval muslim world), it'd be far more united and less prone to radical fringe elements hijacking its overall noble moral ideology. It's because of the lack of any particular central body that individual radical clerics can become so powerful

Historic opposition. Christian churches can't even reconcile from within. Imagine how much more difficult reconciling with an external religion would be.
Well, the thing of syncretism is that it's not done by the churches/mosques/synods/etc. It's done by the individual worshippers. Syncretic religious practices often are completely un-organized, have no centers of worship, are practiced privately by small groups or individuals. In other words, they completely bypass the power structures of centralized religions. Any religion that thinks it is the one, true, right way is going to feel threatened by that. Especially if it makes a lot of money off being the one, true, right way. But syncretism is a more natural way for people to go. It's been common practice around the world for pretty much all of recorded history. The current era of pure, unmixed groups is actually pretty short and fairly odd. I don't think it will last. This means that neither the Islamic nor the Christian organizations will have a say in the matter, when it comes to it.

Islam, like any religion or ideology, is mutable. It can evolve. In many countries in the 'west', Islam survives as a benevolent and unifying force in the community. Western societies do not tend to kill or dilute it.

Not according to the fundamentalists. This mutability you refer to is denounced by those in Islam who want it to remain "pure". They therefore resist these changes and kill those who may try to dilute it or let it evolve.

if Islam had a central unifying figure or authority (like the caliph in the medieval muslim world), it'd be far more united and less prone to radical fringe elements hijacking its overall noble moral ideology. It's because of the lack of any particular central body that individual radical clerics can become so powerful
Well, blame Atatürk.

if Islam had a central unifying figure or authority (like the caliph in the medieval muslim world), it'd be far more united and less prone to radical fringe elements hijacking its overall noble moral ideology. It's because of the lack of any particular central body that individual radical clerics can become so powerful
Like the Christian church and their pope?

I think they had, like, 18 popes simultaneously at one point? Yeah, strong leaders solve everything. They are real unificators. :rolleyes:

Like the Christian church and their pope?

I think they had, like, 18 popes simultaneously at one point? Yeah, strong leaders solve everything. They are real unificators. :rolleyes:
Not to get tangled in this, but ir's not the person (or even the number) - it's the institution. Also, Caliphs were seldomly less than two.
It was about an idealized core of the religion.

NOTE: It's not the Christian Church, it's the Catholic. Nuance.

Well, the thing of syncretism is that it's not done by the churches/mosques/synods/etc. It's done by the individual worshippers. Syncretic religious practices often are completely un-organized, have no centers of worship, are practiced privately by small groups or individuals. In other words, they completely bypass the power structures of centralized religions. Any religion that thinks it is the one, true, right way is going to feel threatened by that. Especially if it makes a lot of money off being the one, true, right way. But syncretism is a more natural way for people to go. It's been common practice around the world for pretty much all of recorded history. The current era of pure, unmixed groups is actually pretty short and fairly odd. I don't think it will last. This means that neither the Islamic nor the Christian organizations will have a say in the matter, when it comes to it.
You underestimate the power of centralised religion.

The Catholic Church has one leader now. :)

Not to get tangled in this, but ir's not the person (or even the number) - it's the institution. Also, Caliphs were seldomly less than two.
It was about an idealized core of the religion.

NOTE: It's not the Christian Church, it's the Catholic. Nuance.


Bit more than a nuance. Wars have been fought over that single distinction and neither side likes it's misapplication.

You underestimate the power of centralised religion.

The Catholic Church has one leader now. :)

Well, the Roman Catholic Church has one leader. But I can name a half dozen Catholic sects off the top of my head that dispute his papacy, from Eastern Orthodx to the anti-Vatican II crowd. Come to think of it, as different as they are from eachother, they seem to have basically the sme problem with the RCC.

The Catholic Church is still relatively cohesive and very well funded.

I'm sorry, but I can't think of a polite way to say this: your post is full of crap.

Islam, like any religion or ideology, is mutable. It can evolve. In many countries in the 'west', Islam survives as a benevolent and unifying force in the community. Western societies do not tend to kill or dilute it. Some western societies are killing Muslims wholesale, but that's another story...Islam is thriving in many places, because no religion is enforced along any lines,ethnic or otherwise.
By the way, Russia is not decaying. It is changing.


It is decaying. Vladamir Putin is destroying the democray in Russia because he wants absolute rule. The war in Chechnya has no end in sight. I'm not sure of this but I think he rigged the elections so he would again. Putin is basically a war criminal because of Chechnya. W00t for Russia.

Hmm I doubt he'll manage to establish it though. Foreign interests are creeping into Russia in the form of corporations and so on, and Russia is increasingly interested in its standing, thus bending more often to foreign views.

if Islam had a central unifying figure or authority (like the caliph in the medieval muslim world), it'd be far more united and less prone to radical fringe elements hijacking its overall noble moral ideology. It's because of the lack of any particular central body that individual radical clerics can become so powerful

What gets religions into trouble is the ideology of triumphalism...the idea that God is some sort of a cosmic avenger who is going to kick the ass of everyone else's fake cosmic avenger and rule the world.

The battle between the West and Islam is going to get ugly...one more major terror attack and it's a virtual certainty that Washington is going to dust off the nukes. Some in the political Right here in the USA are already drawing parallels between Islam and Shintoism, and saying that just like atomic weapons were the only way to bring the radical Shintoists running Japan to heel in WWII, nuclear bombardment is the only way Islam can be forced to abandon its war against the West.

I have no doubt the West will win this war--medieval fanatics cannot prevail against the full might and power of Information Age civilization--but it is going to be a rather dark and bloody path.

Indeed, the West is by far the most likely force to win, mainly due to its extreme wealth and knowledge. Yet, as you say, it will be a nasty battle. I didn't think it would involve Europe before, but the more I see, the more I doubt it will merely be the USA against Islam.

I can see the USA administration doing many stupid things, but not nuking Islam. How does one nuke Islam, anyway? Would one nuke the theocratic states? And then wouldn't the USA have to chuck all the Muslims out of its borders, thereby creating internal strife? Imagine how Catholics would feel if the Vatican were nuked. The USA's Muslim population would revolt.

Considering how powerful the Religious Right is in the USA, it could well deport any Muslim insurgents in the name of national security.

I have no doubt the West will win this war--medieval fanatics cannot prevail against the full might and power of Information Age civilization--but it is going to be a rather dark and bloody path.
Indeed, the West is by far the most likely force to win, mainly due to its extreme wealth and knowledge. Yet, as you say, it will be a nasty battle. I didn't think it would involve Europe before, but the more I see, the more I doubt it will merely be the USA against Islam.
You cannot win wars against ideologies, beliefs, etc. For example, the War on Drugs in the US. Does Drugs have a leader, capital city, borders, etc.? No. Anyway, it is even more ludicrous to assume that the War on Terrorism can be won. Terrorism has existed for millennia in one form or another. Taking out one group of terrorists isn't going to prevent terrorism from happening again in a different area, for a different reason, etc. (sorry for the liberal use of etc.). Until a nation changes their name to something like "The Republic of Terrorism", we cannot win a war against it.

A valid argument. Yet at some point or another, it will become harder for terrorism to continue being a faceless, ideological entity.

I can see the USA administration doing many stupid things, but not nuking Islam. How does one nuke Islam, anyway? Would one nuke the theocratic states? And then wouldn't the USA have to chuck all the Muslims out of its borders, thereby creating internal strife? Imagine how Catholics would feel if the Vatican were nuked. The USA's Muslim population would revolt.


You hold Mecca at gunpoint. Simple threat, back down or we make the place untraversable. It would be a bad move, but considering our crop of leaders over the past 50 years I wouldn't put it out of the realm of maybe.

I can see the USA administration doing many stupid things, but not nuking Islam. How does one nuke Islam, anyway? Would one nuke the theocratic states? And then wouldn't the USA have to chuck all the Muslims out of its borders, thereby creating internal strife? Imagine how Catholics would feel if the Vatican were nuked. The USA's Muslim population would revolt.

1. Round up the Muslims and put them in concentration camps, just like we did to the Japanese (which the Supreme Court held was legal).

2. Shoot anyone who resists. If you act swiftly, in a well-organized manner, and without warning, it will go quickly.

3. Then nuke Mecca and Medina with B-53 Mod 1 devices (9 megatons each).

I've said this before, but apparently I need to say it again:

The problem is not Muslims, the problem is Arabs and their bizzaro world version of Hadith Islam.

Russia does indeed have a high muslim population. But doesn't America and other western countries? I think that this isn't nessecarilly a bad thing but rather and example of how Russia is becoming more diverse.


To use the word diversity when talking about a change in the ethnic structure in a country could only happen at this forum. Diversity is always good in the eye of some people, it is never bad it seems. It’s kind of funny how the times change things, once there was strength trough unity now it is strength trough diversity.

I don't see there being much of a problem as long as we allow everyone to mantain their own culture (assuming it doesn't harm anyone obviously).

If you live in (put in our country) you should become (put in your country), that’s how it worked before. And it worked, why you people keep on forcing this fever dream of a multicultural society where we are all children of the rainbow down your throats is beyond me.

By the way, Russia is not decaying. It is changing.

It is healthy to read stuff like this, laughter does after all expand your life expanse

I mean, if you actually take the time to pay attention, the Koran makes a hell of alot more sense than the Bible

What ever muslim.

No, the French were trying to use Integration, what I described was Multi-Culturalism and it's working pretty well in England.

Got any facts to back that up with? Or do I have to take your word for it.