Religion doesn't live outside people's minds, or you might think so but then this turns into philosophical debate. I think this is big illusion with people who see Islamic doctrine as monolithic and unchanging that lives outside human understanding or interpretarion. It's pure nonsense.
I don't see it as monolithic. Far from it. But I do see that one of the common themes running through all Islamic discourse is the ambition, nay the sheer wanton
lust, to destroy the infidel and convert the entire world.
As for interpretation - I believe in common-sense interpretation. That is, if the Quran says, "Kill the infidel", I understand it to mean, "Kill the infidel". Nothing less, nothing more.
Actually the danger becomes closer if you think so. Because you want to free those people who follow those principles of Islam, we don't want them to follow, by braking this image of Islam that lives outside their mind or cannot adopt to anything. You, yourself create monster out of it and like you said aren't able to anything but maybe plan genocide which is unthinkable.
There is another way - isolate yourself. Make sure that you have no dealings with the Muslim world except for trade. Let them rot if they have to. Let them close off their societies.
One major thing here - always,
always make sure that you hold the ability to defeat your trade partners in war if the time comes, because if they are in a position where they can defeat you, you shall suffer what we in India suffered for over a thousand years, and to you, history may not be so kind as to allow survival.
This will eventually lead to collapse, because the Muslim world, as it is now, is not capable of sustaining itself. It lives because of the Western money you get from oil, and it dies the minute that money dries up. As the prices of oil go up, and alternate sources are found and exploited, their importance and the power they hold over you will decrease. The money that kept them afloat, which we give them now, will dry up.
Finally, their region will collapse as the dictators and theocrats will no longer have the means necessary to continue their oppression. The region will go down in anarchy. Let it stew for a while, let there be a massive bloodletting as all the historic hatreds work themselves out (Kurds vs. Shias vs. Sunnis vs. everyone else), all without our help. It is at that crucial juncture at which we intervene - send aid, install a government, rebuild everything, forcibly open up the society (the people will be too deprived and exhausted and just plain mostly dead to care). This will essentially involve the end of Islam as a force, but it is the only way to make sure we don't face such a scenario again in the future.
And the best part is, we won't even have to do anything wrong or bad. They'll pretty much do it to themselves, given a chance.
Into this kind of dead end it leads. Your way explains nothing and provides no solutions. Only submission.
If Newtonian physics tells me that there is no solution to the problem of "how to get energy or matter for free, from nothing", or if relativity tells me that it is not possible to travel faster than light, do I fight these theories by saying that "Your theory explains nothing and provides no solutions."?
People project to religion and their into culture their needs and desires and if it gives them enough back they choose to follow the parts of it that gives them the highest payback. If it is way of violence or being subdued to blind faith, they do so. But if there are other options for them provided by their religion and culture, they will feel as happy to follow those than other possibilities.
What if there are no real other options?
And I think these can be provided by following Islam. It is just different Islam that currently might be present in many current muslim countries. And that is a problem, I'm not disagreeing with.
I do not understand this.
The fundamental principles and diktats of Islam were all pretty much fully formulated by Mohammed in the beginning. It is impossible to contradict them. Nobody can do it. If you do, you're not a Muslim. That is very clear cut.
And it is because it is so clear cut that there is this restoring force towards the original seventh-century version. It's like a spring, constantly pulling all Muslim societies back to the same "Version One". So today, the forces of, say, economic growth and liberalisation will provide a pull in one direction. But it is a tense situation - the society is right now in equilibrium between Islam, pulling it back, and the modern world, calling it forward. The minute this pull weakens, we go back to the old desert barbarism.
It's a pattern which has been repeated countless times throughout history, in all Muslim countries and communities. Whenever the society is progressing, people ignore those parts of Islam which don't fit. But at the first setback, people start saying, "All this new-fangled 'modern development' is false and useless. Look where it got us. See, because of this, we suffered this setback. But had we been good Muslims, not abandoned <insert ill-fitting or non-fitting bits of Islam> for the sake of this, then this would not have happened. All this is temporary, but Islam is permanent, and so we should return to the original vision of the Prophet."
Everyone talks about how some Muslim empires were liberal. But have we seen how the Islamic faithful of that time reacted to this leniency, whether co-existence was easy or difficult? Have we seen the reaction of the clergy? Have we seen how quickly the society slid back into barbarism once the influence of the liberating central state was gone? Have we ever asked ourselves, "Why?"
Question is how do you introduce it to the masses of islam and give them more options if their poltiical system not only because of religion but also otherwise is corrupted?
I see no way, except waiting and watching as we see the whole region go down, then strike when we have that narrow window of opportunity.
No it isn't and won't change to such whatever amount of times you repeat it.
It's your opinion and so is your estimation of it being a fact is your opinion too.
How many muslims there are exactly currently, in what kind of area they live and how deeply they are religious? I wouldn't call that a failure my any means. Whether it can adopt to the modern times over time remains still to be seen.
It is ironic, isn't it, that the only Muslim community to have enjoyed the benefits of a state with human rights, secularism, and democracy, and who live under no fear of invasion or the collapse of their state, are the Muslims of India? Pakistan failed. Bangladesh is failing. The ME is a basket case. Indonesia is radicalising fast. In the heartland of the culture which they once tried to ravage and destroy, they have found their best and only refuge.
Ponder that for a moment, if you will.
Oh, so you now even quote LSD-trip Philip K. Dick there in the end about the reality?
I did now know where that quote came from, and I do not really care. I only know that it rings true with me. And it does not matter who said it, if it is true, it is true.
I can as well do statement that the hindu culture in general is in similar condition as Islam and state that it is a fact. How's river Ganges BTW?
In same crappy state or in even more crappy state?
This isn't very constructive way to see things, is it?
It is, when you try to take root causes into account.
Who ruled India for the past thousand years? The Muslims for the first eight hundred, the British for the next two hundred.
What happened during that time? Progressive social degeneration, and final economic collapse.
What happened at Independence? Democracy was instituted, and the state (effectively) came back into Hindu hands.
What has been happening since then? A steady upward climb, with growth increasing a hell of a lot when the BJP came to power (they kicked off an economic boom not seen in the past two hundred years, continuing till now).
We can maybe agree that following the orthodox laws of Islam with narrow outlooks can cause trouble when encountering modern age but it doesn't reflect the fact that Islam can do also fine with modernism just like many other religions have done even with troubled past.
The problem is, the smallest law of Islam is derived from the largest ones. It's a web which is impossible to untangle.
Negating one negates the whole. Mohammed designed it like that. That is why that "restoring force" exists.
Other religions or ideologies as well can in similar fashion cause problems if you follow them by some strange orthodox doctrine even by today. Even atheism, secularism, liberalism if followed by conviction to wrong ends can be such.
I am no longer an ideologue. I was, once, when I was younger and more foolish (till very recently). I don't believe in ideologies as a means of understanding things any longer. I prefer using meta-analytical tools, such as game theory, economics, psychology, evolutionary biology and evolution in general, the physical sciences, and philosophy, to understand the world around me. I have stopped attaching a moral judgement to Islam. But this I do know - it
does not work!
Christianity had to change quite much and be become more and more separated from the state in order to still fit to lives of the people and meet the demands of modern age.
It could do that because the nature and organisation of the state was not a part of the core of Christianity. Christ was not a politician, he did not try to forge a state, he was not a warrior who tried to conquer an area and expand into nearby ones. He was simply a man preaching a lot of common sense.
That is why the things his tradition accreted over the years could later be removed. With much pain and resistance, but it could be done. Like liposuction. But doing that to Islam is like trying to tear out its heart. You can live without your body fat, but I doubt you could live without your heart.
):
