Posted on 06/14/2013 7:29:15 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
This has the effect of being the one that will destroy Islam IF we take the opportunity to humiliate Islam utterly and totally. Islam works on being a "join us, we win" religion.
To go a bit deeper, at its founding, Islam actually *was* more civilized than the tribalism that existed around it. This both gave it a selling point to about anyone, and the organization to overcome the existing systems.
However, this belief in its superiority is still there, even though it is plainly obvious to about everyone that it is an inferior way, compared to civilization. The end result is that Islam has taken up the mantle of barbarism against civilization, while still furtively asserting it is superior.
What really crippled Islam, however, was the Persian philosopher al-Ghazali, in the 11th and 12th Centuries. His philosophy was paradoxical, and ultimately fundamentalist: that Muslims should seek knowledge, which they were doing, but they should not seek knowledge outside of the Koran, the Tafsir and the Tawil, the books that explain it in detail, because “all knowledge” is contained within them.
It was with his philosophy and its related Persian xenophobia, that was the end of Islamic learning. It didn’t happen immediately, but spread throughout the ummah, and fortunately did not reach the great Islamic libraries in Spain until after the Christians had retaken the place.
In those parts of Islam already prone to primitivism, al-Ghazali was preceded by Salafism, best described as reverting in behavior and knowledge to the time of Mohammed, and then in the 18th Century by Wahhabism, which is also the embrace of severe primitivism, and utterly destructive of anything else, since. As soon as Wahhabis take over a decorated mosque, for example, they destroy all the art and whitewash the walls. They control Saudi Arabia, as well, and have even obliterated all historical traces of Mohammed and other artifacts. History bad.
And unfortunately for Muslims, the vast majority of Sunni Imams are trained in Pakistan, in Wahhabi madrassas schools. So no matter what Sunni sect, nor how modernist it is, they will likely get radical fundamentalist clergy, who will try to radicalize them, and recruit their children to go on violent jihad.
Fortunately, when barbarism fights civilization, barbarism almost always loses, for the simple reason that everyone can tell what works better. While this is less obvious in the West, in Africa, Islam is hemorrhaging followers who convert to Christianity. Voting with their feet.
And if you are reliant on brutality to keep your followers, you have already lost.
ping to a very informative post by yefr
to debate -- I wonder if that is always true -- after all the Moslem hordes invaded and took over the higher civilisations of India, Iran
Persia is an unusual case, because it is the crossroads of southern Asia, as Turkey is the meeting point between Asia and Europe. Both have been frequently overrun.
The first conquest of Persia was by Alexander, then with the end of his empire, they were dominated by Greece for a while longer, during which both Zoroastrianism and Buddhism held sway. Though the Arabic conquest at the time was fierce, it was only partially successful, as the Persians could not abide dominance by Arabs, to the point of creating the great schism of Islam, becoming the Shiites. The Zoroastarians still dominated the upper classes to modern times, with Islam being the religion of the poor.
India was even more haphazard, Islam having only limited force, and meeting a brick wall of Hindu and Buddhism. For a long time there was coexistence, with various kings vying for which religion would be more advantageous. The last example of this was in modern Kashmir, in which the king refused to choose, resulting in contention that exists to this day.
A similar thing happened with the Islamic conquest of western Europe from Africa. Almost making it to France before being turned back, there was generally modest to moderate instability with Christians until the Muslims were finally booted out during the Reconquista in 1492.
Yet during all of this, determining which force was *more* civilized is problematic. They were not profoundly different, a choice between civilization and barbarity, as were the (western) Romans and the tribes of Gaul, so the contention was more between equals.
And this is a great example of barbarism vs. the decline of civilization. It took a very long time for the tribes to conquer the western Roman empire, and in that time they had become far more civilized.
Excellent news, although I’d like to see the numbers independently verified. Plus, I thought a large majority of North African Muslims were Berbers, not Arabs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.