-- Samuel Huntington, Clash of Civilizations, 1993
This is the last sentence of one of Huntington's paragraphs, and when I read it I stopped. And read it again, and again, and again.
Huntington argues (correctly) that Muslims are fighting (violently) other civilizations on *all* of their borders -- they are *not* just fighting Westerners. Muslims are clashing with other religions/civilizations everywhere -- Chechnya, Indonesia, Sudan, China...and now, beyond their borders, striking in the United States.
Why?
What makes Islam different from say, Western Christianity, or Confucianism, or Hinduism, or Japanese civilization (all defined as separate civilizations by Huntington)? Is it different? Christianity has a pretty bloody past. Granted, the bloodiest fighting (and most often used in arguments against Christianity) was during the Crusades, when Christians were fighting...oh, yeah...Muslims. But there is definitely violence in Christian history. Is Christianity simply at a different stage now? Is it...more "developed" than Islam? (That's a question, not a statement.)
I'm not trying to argue that Islam is or isn't inherently more violent than any other particular faith -- I'm not trying to say there's something wrong with it or that it's somehow, in and of itself, "bad" or "evil." (I.e., please don't call me a racist or intolerant of other religions...the point of this post is not an assertion but rather an attempt to formulate an opinion in the first place .)
But Huntington's assertion does ring true simply because the evidence is there. An enormous portion of the bloodshed going on today is a result of clashes between Islam and other civilizations.
Why is this?
[ May 06, 2004, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christianity and Western Civilization IS also at war with all other cultures, I believe. Just listen to the way our more extreme conservatives (our own equivalent to Muslim extremists) talk.
Christianity just uses different, less bloody tactics. Why? I think because it can - it has all the powerful nations, after all. Muslim nations are third-world, for the most part. Peaceful conquest is a much harder option for them.
posted
Here is what I heard, and I am still mulling it over. If you look at the most direct words of Christ, those found in the four Gospels, you can not find anything that supports the crusades, torture, or anything short of turning the other cheek, forgiveness, and love for EVERYONE—exemplified by Christ’s life. Yeah the Old Testament is a bloody mess and Paul was certainly zealous, but the teachings of Christ Himself can not be used in an abusive way and still be faithful to Christ.
The bloody wars you speak about can be justified using Mohammad's direct revelation of God's Word.
I do not know if this is true, as it has been a LONG time since I read the Koran, but it rings true that I am still mulling it over until I can either re-read the Koran or talk to someone with more insight and education on the issue then me.
Maybe the Koran is stuck in the Old Testament attitude, which is certainly much more bloody and vengeful then the New Testament.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Christianity just uses different, less bloody tactics. Why? I think because it can
If these less bloody tactics are not war, then are you talking about capitalism? Economic conquest? If so, do you really think our economic conquest is religiously motivated?
quote:If you look at the most direct words of Christ, those found in the four Gospels, you can not find anything that supports the crusades, torture, or anything short of turning the other cheek, forgiveness, and love for EVERYONE—exemplified by Christ’s life. Yeah the Old Testament is a bloody mess and Paul was certainly zealous, but the teachings of Christ Himself can not be used in an abusive way and still be faithful to Christ.
The people on the crusades DID justify it based on the Christian religion. So, it MUST be possible to interpret the Bible in a way that could support such wars, as it has been done.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If these less bloody tactics are not war, then are you talking about capitalism? Economic conquest? If so, do you really think our economic conquest is religiously motivated?
They use the media, missionaries, international organizations, political pressure, etc. And yes, they do tack cultural values onto economic conquests and bring them to other countries. As for "religiously motivated," I think it would be better put as "motivated by the desire to do what we believe is right or acceptable" - although in some cases (lie missionaries) people will be more direct about the religious or cultural roots of their actions.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes it can. The bible is certainly filled with double speak, but we are talking about why would Islam be more bloody then the bible, and my contention is that the culminating event in the Bible is the life of Christ, and the life of Christ was an example of pure love and forgiveness.
I would love to understand Jihad more and how/where/why/when it is justified and what it really is. I assume it is based on peaceful progression, but there must be an element in it that justifies the type of killing we see from Al-Quada. Is there a culminating event in the Koran that preaches against violence against unbelievers?
These are questions I will research someday, but I am thinking that if Christianity did not have the perfect love of Christ, it would be a much more bloodier religion.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it rings true, that the evidence is there, for almost entirely reasons of politics and economics, and not religion. Also because many (perhaps a majority, in fact) of currently Islamic nations (or nations with a majority of Muslims) are still recovering from whimsical partitioning by largely European powers.
Edit:
quote:The bloody wars you speak about can be justified using Mohammad's direct revelation of God's Word.
Actually, it was my understanding that the harming of innocents and mistreatment of nonbelievers was specifically proscribed in the Holy Koran.
posted
Kasie and others: as someone who is very familiar with Huntington's works from long ago up till present, I can tell you that the academia of international relations and foreign policy considers ol' Sam to have gone senile starting with his horrid essay The Clash of the civilizations? which he later expanded into a book -- removing the question mark when he did so.
He recently wrote a piece in Foriegn Policy magazine called "Jose can you see?" that was basically an old-style Pat Buchananesque "death of the west" essay about how immigration from Mexico is going to destroy our "pure white protestant culture," and that these "animals" coming across the border have low cultural motivation and little civic pride or ambition. There wasn't a single scrap of scienfitic data that supported anything he said, much like his horrible essay-then-book.
Oh sure, both the recent essay, and the original "clash" essay and book are full of statistics but they don't really back up any of his outlandish arguments.
With The Clash,Huntington strove to attempt to respond to and negate Fukuyama's End of History and completely failed.
To quote the wonderful, and late, Dr. Edward Said who recently lost his battle to lukemia this past year , "Huntington's essay was horrid, but it was better than the book, he should have never inflated it."
Huntinton is basically guilty of oversimplifying cultures to an astronomical degree and completely ignoring the cultural effects of soft power and liberalization through free market capitalism as demonstrated by Francis Fukyama.
quote: As for "religiously motivated," I think it would be better put as "motivated by the desire to do what we believe is right or acceptable"
I am sorry Xaposert, but I find a definite distinction between religious wars and cultural wars. Our culture has it's roots in Christianity, but our culture is not a means to spread Christianity or the method to convert to Christianity.
I actually think the bloodiness of Islam has more to do with real estate then anything to do with morality or conversion found in the Koran. I hope I am not wrong.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but Mr. Huntington's comments are about culture wars (clash of civilizations), not just religious wars.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Actually, it was my understanding that the harming of innocents and mistreatment of nonbelievers was specifically proscribed in the Holy Koran.
That is why I like this thread. There is so much I would like to learn about Islam as a religion and politics of the Middle East so I can understand what is going on over there. I am the first to admit that it has been far too long since I read the Koran, I have not followed the news over the past 10 years, and I have only heard mostly far-right opinions on the Middle East.
[Edit] Since I now have no new opinion on the matter and want to learn, I am putting myself in lurk-control on this thread. I do need to read that essay.
posted
I was under the impression that religious extremists in Islam used the Koran to justify their actions in much the same way Christians have used the Bible to justify the Crusades, slavery, racism, etc.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, on Islam and China -- it's mostly an internal affair (civil war-esque). I don't have a lot of info on it -- or really the time to look it up -- but there are definitely clashes going on.
Brian M,
Uh...well. Huntington's recent essay about Mexican immigration may be a little questionable, but his Clash of Civilizations? article definitely is *not*. It is still widely, widely taught at academic institutions around the nation and I would argue that it's in fact a cornerstone of many arguments regarding the War on Terror and terrorism in general.
quote:Huntinton is basically guilty of oversimplifying cultures to an astronomical degree and completely ignoring the cultural effects of soft power and liberalization through free market capitalism as demonstrated by Francis Fukyama.
This depends *entirely* on your worldview and what you emphasize. Huntington emphasizes the effects of culture over the effects of economic liberalization. Fukyama emphasizes something else. Other scholars emphasize the balance of power between the nations. I would argue it's a blending of all three -- but that doesn't entirely invalidate Huntington's argument. I think it needs to be tempered, sure, but I (and, I believe, the academic community) don't/doesn't think Huntington is irrelevant.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alexa, Tresopax will take any premise and turn it into America/Western Civilization's fault. That's just the way he is.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to resurface, but something has been bothering me in the back of my mind, and I just identified it.
quote:Christianity just uses different, less bloody tactics. Why? I think because it can - it has all the powerful nations, after all.
Does this mean that bloody tactics are justified when the opponent is more economically powerful then you? Wal-mart is certainly driving a lot of small businesses out of business, if someone decides to do a suicide bombing on Wal-mart associates, should Wal-mart feel apologetic? Should unsuccessful businesses be licensed to "take out" more successful businesses?
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Fukuyama uses culture in a way that balances his economic analysis. Fukuyama discusses the phenomenon of American Soft power in the form of a free open society, democratic government, property rights and a sense of communal discourse across all demographics of society. That is the essence of Fukuyama's argument, and the neocon historical "revisionists" attempt to hypocritically pidgeonhole him as being primarily economic.
You can say it's merely a "different point of view" regarding Huntington, but what you cannot do is apply rules of logic and discourse to him because he does not meet the most important one he claims to: He does not provide any threshhold between what he claims is cultural nihilism versus what he concedes at times to be "bumps" along the way to adjusting to cultural liberalization with the effects of Soft Power. Because he misses this tremendous brightline completely, and because he presents his arguments without appropriate data to back them up, he is not taken very seriously in IR-FP anymore.
quote:Does this mean that bloody tactics are justified when the opponent is more economically powerful then you?
Nope, but it does mean the justified options are harder to do. Gandhi faced a more economically powerful opponent and won, but it was very difficult. And when things get difficult people tend to give up on the justified way and start calling for violent options in the name of "practicality."
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Pixiest will take anything Tresopax says and personally insult him for it, usually by labelling him anti-American, childish, and treasonous. (That seems to be Pix's fave)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether or not Huntington is senile, Islam does have bloody borders. But so does Christiananity. Not only was their Christian violence in the Crusades, but it existed during the colonization of the Americas, during its imperialistic days in Africa and Asia, and it has been brutal toward minority religious groups such as the Jews and Gypsies in Europe, and even against other Christians whether it be Calvinists against Catholics, Catholics against Protestants, Protestants against Mormons. What it comes down to is that people will justify violence any way they can and if religion does that then so be it.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course Communism's borders are never bloody To get back to the original idea, I don't think there is a difference in the overall maturity of Islam and Christianity. Islam has a different view of the material world than Christianity. Though within Christianity there is a lot of variation.
I would generally support the argument that violence is not justified by the doctrine of either Christianity or Islam. The "jihad" can be considered a struggle against temptation as much as against infidels. And in the Koran, Jews and Christians are not infidels. Though in a Muslim society they would have to pay additional taxes.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Muslims are obligated under Zakaat to pay a yearly tithe equivalent of 1/40th of the value of their property -- excluding primary residence, cooking utensils, primary transportation, tools of trade, etc: items similar to those covered under the Western homestead-protection laws -- to provide social services. A comparable Western tax would be a yearly 2.5% tax on stocks, bonds, CDs (both Certificates of Deposits and CompactDiscs ), savings accounts, pension funds, second/vacation homes, jewelry, art works, second cars and recreational vehicles, rental property, etc. WallStreet would be screaming bloody murder if capital gains taxes were to be replaced by a yearly 2.5% tax on the market valuation of stocks and bonds.
Because Christians and Jews are not obligated under Zakaat, Muslim states have sometimes?often imposed a secular* "extra"tax upon nonMuslims to somewhat equalize their contribution to social stability.
* Since we are talking of Muslim states, it is justified under Muslim law on the basis of fairness rather than codified in Muslim law itself. Which is why the "extra"tax is sometimes?often imposed instead of always imposed.
posted
Everyone brings up the Crusades as the prototypical "Evil Christianity" deal. So rarely does one look at the Muslim empire on the other side of the coin...
And rarely do they ever see how that empire spread Islam outside its cradle in the Arabian deserts. Or even how long that empire lasted, with the Ottomans remaining in power in Turkey and the surrounding regions past World War I.
Ever wonder where the trouble in the Balkans stems from? Where the true roots of the Pakistani/Hindi troubles lie?
I don't mean to try to paint the Muslim world with blood, but let's also not paint their history in shining metallics and brilliant pure white...
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I'd say Islamic countries have bloody borders because third-world countries have bloody borders. Or, at least, poverty allows enough lunatics present to screw over everyone else.
In the Crusades, the popes pretty much turned impoverished and/or indebted peasants, some knights, and criminals against the Muslims.
In the 1793 Reign of Terror, Robespierre turned what was primarily the radical working poor (sans cullotes) against everyone else.
In 1922 and 1933, Hitler turned restless ex-soldiers and desperate right-wingers against everyone else.
As I type, a very small group of radical Islamists are turning people in third-world countries against us.
I am trying to establish a pattern: in troubled times, radicals are more likely to be followed. I don't think that is a religious phenomenon. I don't think Al-Queda represents Islam any more than Crusaders represent Christianity, Terrorists represent democrats, or Nazis represent Germans.
The fact is, in troubled times, complete lunatics are more likely to be followed. That is what I feel is happening now in Islamic countries.
Posts: 755 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Shlomo. I doubt that Islam is all that violent. It's the current powerful clergy that advocates violence.
You can find an equal number of "Islam encourages murder" and "Islam forbids murder" sites on Google.
This one is slightly anti-Islamic: Islam vs. Christianity It says Islam has different rules on murder and violence. Against other Muslims it's bad, but on others it's acceptable or required.
This one is pro-Islamic: ISNA It says Islam teaches peace and acceptance becuase we're all one family.
I think like any religion, we tend to focus on the nut jobs. Personally, I think it says more about the average American maturity level than it does about Islam.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sopwith: While Islam conquered a lot of people, during that conquering they were for the most part pretty civil (by the day's standards in particular, they were if anything more civil than most). Also, the conquering of large swathes of the globe was pretty much the fashionable thing of the period -- everyone was trying to do it, including Christian Europe.
However, the awful thing about the crusades wasn't the aggression (though a lot of it was pretty darn stupid aggression). It was the horrific things that were done on them. Entire cities of people (including Christians and Jews) slain because most of the city was Islamic. Jewish communities in Christian cities along the way, annihilated in religious fervor. Constantinople sacked (with ensuing mass murdering) in order to pay off a debt for some ships to carry crusaders!
The crusades were an atrocity in a way few conquests were, and the Islamic conquests were not.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Islam has bloody borders." SamuelHuntington should consider spending a moment or two studying ChristianityPosts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Things like this just upset me to no end. Nobody who knows anything about Islam, or who knows even a few of the millions of Islamic people who are good, sane, law abiding, kind, and respetable people can possibly think the problem is Islam.
When people say stupid things like that (like Islam is the problem) what they are doing is making enemies out of millions of people who are our natural allies and friends. What is the point in that? What does that do but make things enormously worse?
The problem is far more aptly captured by saying that intolerant bigoted people are the problem. For instance, people who say "all Americans are bad" or "all Christians are evil" or "Islam is the problem".
[ May 09, 2004, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote: 2.190. Fight against those who fight against you in the way of Allah, but do not transgress, for Allah does not love transgressors.
2.191. Kill them whenever you confront them and drive them out from where they drove you out. (For though killing is sinful) wrongful persecution is even worse than killing. Do not fight against them near the Holy Mosque unless they fight against you; but if they fight against you kill them, for that is the reward of such unbelievers.
2.192. Then if they desist, know well that Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Compassionate.
2.193. Keep on fighting against them until mischief ends and the way prescribed by Allah prevails. But if they desist, then know that hostility is only against the wrong-doers.
A huge problem with the misinterpretation of the Quran is that many Imams are illiterate and know only a few passages of scripture. What they do not have memorized, they tend to make up for themselves, and their people. In this system it is very easy to justify nearly anything that the illiterate Imams might wish to justify.
Again, we see in the Quran the same mixed emotions as we see in the Torah and the New Testament (Interestingly enough, the Book of Mormon is much less ambiguous; war is discouraged unless in defense of family, the church, and liberty). These religions underwent fundamental changes when the starter(s) of the religion died, or in a few cases ascended to heaven. The religious principles of Islam and Christianity especially seem to have taken a more political turn once their founders were no longer present to teach their original beliefs.
Posts: 1744 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
aspectre, that link is ridiculous on its face. It starts off with this thesis:
quote:Christians complain a lot about the "persecutions" they allegedly suffered in ancient Rome. Given that they were trying to destroy the heathen spiritual values that had made Rome great in the first place, it is not surprising that the heathens tried to defend themselves.
To support it's thesis that these persecutions were in response to Christian opression, it lists things that happened AFTER Rome stopped persecuting Christians.
And of course, none of this refutes Huntington's thesis, which is that today Islam has bloody borders. Christianity can have a bloddy past and not disprove his theory.
No, Christianity is not innocent of atrocities. Yes, Huntington is makes gross oversimplifications that make his theory bunk. But there's no need to hype utterly absurd theories to prove this.
posted
Fugu, the Crusades are an easy one to pick on because, well, they were horrific.
However, you might want to look into some other parts of history to check on some of the Ottoman Empire's atrocities (as well as the early Muslim conquests).
Particular things to look into:
1. The Ottoman purges of the Armenians. One must remember that the Nazis studied how the Ottomans created concentration camps for the obliteration of the Christian Armenians. Millions died and history barely remembers them.
2. Atrocities in Serbia/Montenegro and other Balkan states during their conquest. That area underwent a looong period of convert or die and the repercussions of those actions centuries ago still reverberate strongly in Kosovo and Bosnia.
3. Atrocities by the Moors against the Spaniards leading up to their expulsion from the Iberian pennisula by El Cid.
4. The rape of city states in Asia Minor and the slaughter of foreigners from time to time. In one particular case, they didn't slaughter the infidels but simply enslaved them after removing one ear from each. The baskets of ears were sent back to their home countries.
5. And don't get me started on the slavery issues, which still exist to this day. Slavery, no matter what they call it, is still the thing of the day in places like the Sudan, Yemen and even good old Saudi Arabia.
Basically, all I am trying to say is, we can't point an accusing finger at Christianity and say it stands out as an evil in this world as is often the case today. We can't do it unless we are willing to point another finger at Islam and say that their history is just as bloody and evil.
But we must also remember, it is very easy to mix politics and religion in history because they were so intertwined. Many used religion for their politics and politics for their religion.
God's words to a prophet's ears to a human's hand.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:34: "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35: For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36: and a man's foes will be those of his own household.
Matthew 10:34-36
I am not saying that Jesus meant this literally, but it could certainly be used to justify violence by a Christian who was looking for such justification.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked the part in Pastwatch where the scholar Talavera is dicussing his methods. See what the monarchs want, then use Scripture, tradition, and ancient writings to prove that was the correct course. And he was sad because no one ever caught on to what he was doing. They were so convinced the texts were correct, they never saw him manipulating them. Worse, they never saw it in themselves.
I think most people are like Card's scholars. They're so convinced they've stumbled across truth they never think to question that maybe they're only seeing what they want to see. Lord knows I've been guilty of that before.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know very little about Islam, but even I know enough to know that it is a religion of peace. A couple of quotes and a couple of stories:
"And hold fast, all of you together, to the rope of Allah, and be not divided among yourselves, and remember Allah's favour upon you; how ye were enemies and he joined your hearts in love, so that by his grace ye became brethren. And how ye were on the brink of an abyss of fire, and he did save you from it. Thus Allah makes clear his revelations unto you, that ye may be guided."
"When you show kindness to women and children then Allah is well acquainted with what you do."
One time The Prophet cut off the sleeve of his robe to avoid waking up his cat who had fallen asleep there.
Another time there was a woman who was accustomed to shout insults every day from her home at The Prophet as he passed by. Day after day she abused him and spit upon him whenever he walked past. Then one day she was not there. So he went to see what was wrong, and it turned out she was deathly ill and had noone to care for her. The Prophet looked after her and nursed her back to health. Then her heart was changed. Perhaps it would have made a better story if she went back to cursing him every day. <laughs> But the way I heard the story, she had been a mean and friendless person, and by The Prophet's kindness her heart was changed.
As I said, I know very little. But even a smattering of knowledge and a handful of Islamic people I've known is enough to show me that the idea that Islam is the problem is nothing but hurtful bigotry.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
, "Huntington's essay was horrid, but it was better than the book, he should have never inflated it." ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
), savings accounts, pension funds, second/vacation homes, jewelry, art works, second cars and recreational vehicles, rental property, etc. WallStreet would be screaming bloody murder if capital gains taxes were to be replaced by a yearly 2.5% tax on the market valuation of stocks and bonds. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
