Understanding ideologies of destruction

The isms of history

Published on May 27, 2007 By Draginol In War on Terror

I'm a little short on time so I will have to revisit this topic later but I wanted to write it down before I headed out.

I have occasionally contended that Islam is an ideology that is also a religion. The religion part I have no problem with. But the ideology I do. I believe there is something inherent in the Islamic ideology that promote violence and intolerance.

But let's put that aside for a moment and look at Communism.

Communism, as an ideology IS peaceful. The theory behind communism is that we all work together to contribute to the whole of society equally. We do what we're best at to help society as a whole. It is a Utopian philosophy.

Yet, Communism resulted in the deaths of more human beings in history than any other ideology (Fascism is a distant second).

Why is this? Because for whatever reason, Communism seems to lead its most vigilant believers into enacting policies to enforce the ideology which results in deaths. Because most people aren't natural communists (not all people contribute equally) the "true believers" realize they have to force them to adhere to communism. When this is done, the results are catastrophic (famine being the biggest problem but elimination of non-believers as well).

Christianity had its issues as well. In Christianity, only those who accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior have the ability to go to heaven. Therefore, the true believers went to great lengths to convert as many people over in order to "save them". Zealots ultimately killed thousands of people in the process of doing this. But the "save them" part of Christianity is, in my view, not potent enough to be really considered an ideology.

The point is, ideologies have different effects on the truly hard core. To know whether an ideology is a problem or not we have to look at it over a long period of time and on a global scale. We need to make sure that it isn't local culture, or race, or local politics getting intermixed in with the actions of people who adhere to a particular religion or ideology.

That is why I see Islam as a dangerous ideology. That no matter where you go, no matter how materially content they are, they are much more prone (as a percent) than believers in other religions to violence and intolerance.

And just as with Communism, which in itself is a Utopian philosophy that contains no violence at its core, Islam seems to cause its true believers to be much more likely to do things that are very very bad.

Comments (Page 2)

Skyjack

on May 28, 2007

Um, 1 in 4 muslims interviewed in NYC said they believe the cowardly act of homicide bombing is acceptible to "defend Islam" (the religion of peace).

Gotta love the self-hating Americans who will make excuses for this savage culture all day long.

Gideon MacLeish

on May 28, 2007

Against those evil toddler enemies of Islam who hang out in crowded shopping malls, no less.

danielost

on May 28, 2007

one thing to remember the inquistion was in spain

spain lived under muslim rule for a couple hundred years where all they heard was convert or die

Courageous Dageous

on May 28, 2007

spain lived under muslim rule for a couple hundred years where all they heard was convert or die

Or not. All they heard under Muslim rule was "live your life, everyone's good to go."

You need to start reading something besides spurious websites.

Gideon MacLeish

on May 28, 2007

So, wikipedia's a spurious website, courageous?

The initial rule of the Moors in the Iberian peninsula under this Caliphate of Cordoba is generally regarded as tolerant in its acceptance of Christians, Muslims and Jews living in the same territories, though in various periods Jews were expelled and Christians relegated to a kind of second class status. The Caliphate of Córdoba collapsed in 1031 and the Islamic territory in Iberia came to be ruled by North African Moors of the Almoravid Dynasty. This second stage started an era of Moors rulers guided by a version of Islam that left behind the tolerant practices of the past.

I realize you think that the period was an absolute utopia, but not everyone seemed to think so.

Courageous Dageous

on May 28, 2007

wikipedia's a spurious website

Often, yes.

Gideon MacLeish

on May 28, 2007

Often, yes.

Well, considering this particular piece corroborates a lot of information (eg, the reign was pretty good in the early years but religious intolerance was rampant in the later years), I tend to somewhat believe it. This is not some virulent anti-Muslim website, was (and is) my point.

Draginol

on May 28, 2007

Oh yeah and Brad - I've heard that Richard Dawkins has written a book about how religions can cause violence. I'm not sure what it's called but you might find him interesting considering your views on Islam.

I think ideologies cause violence because the most extreme will tend to think they are doing the world a favor by spreading it through any means necessary.

And I think religions tends to have their share of ideology in them with some religions having more than others.

danielost

on May 28, 2007

You need to start reading something besides spurious websites.

didnt read this on a website

read it in the history books when i was in school

cactoblasta

on May 29, 2007

If poverty is the cause of violence, how come the USA, one of the richest nations in the world, also has one of the highest crime rates?

It's not so much poverty as unemployment so far as I can tell. So high crime rates in urban areas could be explained by low employment rates in urban areas.

It's one theory anyway.

rzhang87

on May 29, 2007

I don't think it's Islam persay, but the socio-political situation endemic in many Middle Eastern countries. Lets look at the 5 countries with the most Muslims:

Indonesia: A secular, multiparty democracy that does not recognize any religion as the state religion, despite being overwhelmingly Muslim. It is worthy to note that it was a dictatorship under Suharto, however NOT one based on religion/Sharia law. Is actually comparatively socially liberal, considering the aforementioned and that Playboy has a franchise in the nation

India: I'm assuming that since they consist of 20% of the population there, the vast majority would be participating in the multiparty democracy there, rather than say - partake in random acts of violence or defect to Pakistan or Bangladesh?

Bangladesh: Another electoral democracy, over 90% of whom are Muslims

Pakistan: I probably would not classify it as a democracy as Musharraf seems unwilling to relinquish power over the military. However, freedom of speech and other civil liberties have not been curtailed to the extent that they have been in Russia (see below).

Turkey: Turkey is 99.8% Muslim. If you've been following the news, there have been massive protests in SUPPORT of Turkey's current secular democratic system over the announcement that Erdogan is considering a run for president. Considering that his party models itself on the conservative "Christian Democratic" parties of Europe, Turkey seems to have a greater separation of church and state than perhaps even than many predominantly Christian democracies. Traditional headscarves are banned if you plan to work for the government; a move that even I find to be excessive. But perhaps most surprising of all: Abortion is legal in Turkey up until the 10th week under all circumstances, after which it is legal when considering the health of a mother.

This doesn't really paint a picture of Islam being some sort of "extremist" religion, considering that 4/5 of these countries are established democracies with friendly ties to the US, and NONE OF THEM follow Sharia Law. I also failed to note that while abortion is normally illegal in Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Pakistan, it is legal in case of the mother's health (a policy position probably supported by a large number of social conservatives in this country). In comparison, Christianity also gets a 4/5 unless you consider being shot in an elevator with a 9mm for dissing Vladimir Putin to be "democratic".

Now, back to the Middle East. While most Muslims in the world actually do live in relatively liberal democracies, the ONLY democracy in the Middle East is Israel, which is obviously predominantly Jewish. All the predominantly Muslim countries have a tendency to be dictatorships that quash internal dissent and pursue or have pursued policies that leave the majority (or large minority) of their citizens dirt poor and bitter towards the government. Not only is this a natural powderkeg for extremism, but you also have to ask yourself, in this case, what would be the best means of organizing an opposition to the government?

Put it under religion, of course, just as in the Crusades! And therein lies the problem: not Islam, but a complete failure of Middle Eastern governments to provide for their people and create an atmosphere that eliminates the incentives for extremism. That's not to say that Islam is a religion of peace, but it's not a religions of war more than any other religion (imo it's all about how the reader interprets the scriptures!). I'm sure that if the Middle East were mostly Christian but as equally as screwed up as it is today, we'd be hearing about Christian suicide bombers, or any other religion for that matter. If you don't believe me just read Deuteronomy.

Abe Cubbage

on May 30, 2007

"If poverty is the cause of violence, how come the USA, one of the richest nations in the world, also has one of the highest crime rates?" --LW

Easy. For example, one person in the US has all the money, everyone else is penniless.

In other words, this is a fallacious argument.

Gideon MacLeish

on May 31, 2007

Easy. For example, one person in the US has all the money, everyone else is penniless.

Not sure what happened to my comment before so I'll repeat it.

This is an outright lie, Abe. Only 13% of our country even falls below our own self defined poverty line, which is artificially inflated for political reasons and is FAR above the world average. Minimum wage goes over $11,000/year this year, and to $14,000/year in two years. There are no dead or dying from starvation in the streets, as evidenced by the lack of bodies.

In fact, OBESITY is the number one killer of our "poor". Go figure.

I know you can come up with a better response than that, abe.

cactoblasta

on May 31, 2007

This is an outright lie, Abe.

I think he was using it as an illustrative example of how high GDP and national wealth don't necessarily translate into a lack of poverty. It seems highly unlikely to me that he would suggest all the money in the US belonged to a single person.

Abe Cubbage

on May 31, 2007

Gideon,

You completely misunderstood my post. I was not addressing the content of her argument, I was addressing the fallacious logic used (I am using the word "logic" in the academic sense, i.e. how it would be used in philosophy or law etc, not in the common vernacular sense).

The absurd example I gave illustrated the fallacy.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!