Replies

"Of course the Muslims can use the fruits of modernization withou modernizing themselves. That is exactly what they want..."

Can never happen. Once you begin to improve the lot of the general mass of people materially, they begin to demand political rights, primarily to protect their newly-acquired wealth. Especially from the government. The redistibution of oil wealth currently practiced in the Middle East is NOT intended to improve the general lifestyle or material well-being of the average citizen; it is intended to bribe them into a state of complacency before they get the idea that they could have political rights.

"The violent hostility of Muslim men to the emancipation of women blocks any possiblity of cultural modernization in the Islamic world or even among Muslim populations in the developed world."

The violent hostility of Muslim men towards women has more to do with desert culture than it does Islam. In desert culture, men need to know with as much certainklty as possible that the children they are raising are, in fact, theirs. Paternity is not always easy to prove, but maternity is. And if you keep your women out of sight, herded like cattle and beat into submission, you can always be assured that any offspring brought into your resource-poor world (i.e. the desert) are in fact yours.

The wrapping up of women in burlap sacks, serves two purposes, one practical and the other superstitious. Covering a woman's face and head so that another man cannot get a sense of what she looks like (and thus, be tempted to steal your woman from you), is the practical aspect.

Covering them up from head to toe is a result of the belief (which is also stated in the Bible! Go figure!) that the Angels could be tempted by female beauty, and thus lured to earth, be sure to work their havoc amongst mankind. The Bible says they did at least once, and it's a recurrent theme in the history of all Middle Eastern religions (even the one's pre-Islam and Christianity).

As for the second part of your notion: there is no "developed" Muslim world. There is merely a world populated by Muslims where WESTERNERS have built the infrastructure and provide the consumer goods that transmit the appearance of modernity. You will find, however, in some places (such as Egypt, Iran, the UAE, for example) that there were the beginnings of secular societies which were quickly extinguished by the rise of Khomeini and his ideological offshoots. But again, these were societies that LOOKED Western, but had not fully accepted Western idealogy and methods of thinking.

There is a big difference between an Iranian woman in Tehran wearing a mini skirt in 1976, and one wearing similar garb in the streets of Miami circa 2006. One is a copy of a western style that may not be fully understood (in terms of where it came from, it's history, etc), and one is the result of a mindset of freedom divorced from religious sanction where such things are not alien or shocking.

"Why do you think al-Qaeda loved Taliban Afghanistan so much ?"

Because they followed the dictates of Khomeini who stressed that embracing Western ways, despite the advantages, was not the way to true salvation or true progress. You make the mistake of believing the remark about "the Great Satan" is intended to paint us as evil. It isn't. Satan as the embodiment of evil is a CHRISTIAN invention; in Islam, he's a slippery character whose purpose is to deceive, not capture and evour souls.

Afghanistan represented the best possible opportunity to build a Khomeini-like fundamentalist state: it had no government, it had no semblence of modern, western culture or industry (except weapons, but that's okay), and it had a desperate population that had tried and failed at monarchy, democracy and communism. It was ripe for the picking by the Taliban or the Boy Scouts. The Taliban just got there first.

"Because the very poverty and backwardness of the country was to them a paradise of pristine virtue, uncontaminated by the 'modernity' of the Persian Gulf. They don't want prosperity and modernity."

Sure. And Usama Bin Laden left his billions at home in Saudi, under the mattress, not to fund the Taliban and his Al'Queada buddies, or to build hiumself up as the Middle Eastern Doctor No. Guess again. Just like many a Conservative Christian in this country, Usama's "fundamentalism" is also tempered by his pocketbook.

Never believe, for a second, that money does not intrude upon the spiritual. It ALWAYS does. Do not believe for a second that if given the choice between living his life anonymously as a wealthy playboy with hot and cold runing blondes, that Usama wouldn't take it. Why, in fact, that's what he was doing before he found his "political" calling, wasn't he?

Why, in that way, I guess we could compare Usama, the penitent defender of Islam, in much the same way we might think about a former alchoholic that walked in to speak to Pastor Bob; redemption in the church is cheaper than a psychiatrist or a 12-step program, but is just as psychologically satisfying. And the mopre austere and severe the redemption, the better.

They don't want modernity and prosperity? Are you mad? Why wouldn't anyone want a society that provides them with things like rights, education for their children, clean running water, hospitals, Wal-Mart, dentistry, open-heart surgery, newspapers, television, computers, air conditioning, roads, police forces, fire departments, Led Zepplin, delivery Pizza and Doritos? They very much want what we have in the West; they just don't want it to the same extent that we have it (i.e with the baggage attached) and are not sure how to square it with their culture and religion. In the end, the solution is to chuck the culture and send the religion to the back seat, just like in the West.

"They want a pure world. Why do you think we can change that ? Do you think we can produce a 'gender neutral, tolerant, inclusive' Koran ?"

One reason and one reason only: There is a yawning difference between the Judeo/Christian world and Islam. In our world view, there is something to look forward to. One day the Messiah will come (or comae again, depending on your faith) and set the world aright. It might be messy, it might be violent, but in the end, all will be well. It behooves us as Christians or Jews to ensure that the world is adequately prepared for this event to the bezt of our ability. In other words, we always strive to make this a better world, and in the efforts, hope to prove our worthiness to God.

In Islam, the ultimate, most sacred event has already happened: Mohammed has ascended into Heaven. There is nothing to look forward to. There is literally nothing left except the fufillment of prophecy, as recorded in the Koran, and that's all about death and suffering and icky things like that. There is no hope of redemption for mankind, no assurances that salvation can be yours through your own efforts. God has ordained that the world will be like this, and mankind canot argue with God (or at least his church).

Well, Western civilization is chock full of folks who proved that notion wrong: Gallileo, Prince Henry, Paracelsus, Mercator, Columbus, and a host of others. They demonstrated in the face of often deadly Creligious persecution that the world was a great big mystery that mankind could discern, could manipulate, and in the Newtonian sense, in the discernment and manipulation, understand God while simultaneously helping mankind.

THAT is why I believe Middle Eastern culture can be reformed; because there is a precedent.

Your misunderstanding of the Islamic world is incredible. In one breadth you concede that Islam is a total belief system that allows no room for rationality (medieval Christendom had Aristotle) and in the other you think it can be modernized like Germany or Japan. Maybe your understanding wouldn't be as primitive if you reflected on the reason why Communism and Socialism of the secular European variety have failed to make any headway in the Muslim world.

Islam never had a secular intelligentsia. Renaissance humanism created a proto intelligentsia in Europe. Nothing of the sort ever occured in the Muslim world. That is why whenever Islam and marxism have clashed the result has always been lots of dead communists. As a belief system it admits no equality with any other. There is no sphere of life beyond its control. That is why predictions of modernizing it are so silly.

And if the state oil monopoly is the source of all wealth, the idea of people demanding political rights to protect 'their' newly acquired wealth is ridiculous. It's not 'their' wealth. It's the state's wealth. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Desert ? How utterly ridiculous. When Muslims move to Europe (i.e., the developed world) their first act is to create enclaves in which the writ of the law no longer runs. The police learn to stay out. A very important reason behind this is so they can impose shariah on Muslim women without them having any legal recourse. Muslim women who try to stand up to their families are dealt with by 'honor killings' in the developed world to which the police have a 'hands off' attitude. Only by keeping the modern world out can Muslim men in Europe retain that kind of control over Muslim women.

Your 'we can transform them' is no less delusional than the leftists 'with education and a Marshall Plan for the Middle East we can transform them'. Both are based on a common secularist inability to take religion seriously. Both are the products of people who can understand no motivations higher than comfort and security. Both are the solutions of people who like to believe that everyone is as corrupt as they are. That everyone has his price. There isn't enough money in the world to buy religious fanatics. Osama bin Laden walked away from wealth and comfort to live in caves in Afghanistan. The Taliban fought against drug trafficking because they didn't want Mammon corrupting their paradise of perfect virtue. Al Qaeda loved Afghanistan because it was as close to 7th century Arabia as they had ever seen.

Your comprehension of Washington is similarly idiotic. British naval supremacy meant that Britain would always have the strategic initiative. Until the arrival of the French navy, British armies could land at will anywhere on the American coast. There was never anything Washington could do about that. Trying to hold an island against an enemy with naval superiority risks seeing your army trapped and destroyed. That is why Washington was wise to refuse to committ himself to holding New York at all costs. The point was not to be trapped on the wrong side of the Hudson.