Why is there islamic fundamentalism?

[SS-18 ICBM]

Seeing the resurgence of this ideology, i wonder why? i mean the West is certainly a model. Who comes up with this stuff and why?

 

[Captain Planet]

Seeing the resurgence of this ideology, i wonder why? i mean the West is certainly a model. Who comes up with this stuff and why?

To put it simply.... Because the American government has continually raped and pillaged every culture on Earth.

 

[Verbose]

Rambuchan started a stread a while back that I for one think should be required reading when questions of the whos? and whys? of modern Islamic fundamentalism are popped.

I think you might find it interesting.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=181622

 

[Xanikk999]

To put it simply.... Because the American government has continually raped and pillaged every culture on Earth.

Maybe you could narrow your definition and choice of words to make your statement actually accurate.

 

[Yoda Power]

If I understand you question right, you are asking why the islamic world seems to be so fundamentalist?

In that case the answer is pretty complex.

Circa the year 1500 the Middle East lost an important status, as it was no longer the link between Europe and East Asia. This resulted in less development in the area. Prior to 1500 the Middle East had been more advanced (or atleast just as advanced) as Europe, but with the American colonies Europe was able to leap forward in technology. This resulted the industrialization, which increased the % of people living in urban area, which means they were not farmers, but actual workers. As urbanism grew punlic education grew with it (it's easier to educate an urban population than an agricultural one). Education made peope demand more power, which resulted in democracy, something not existant in most islamic countries.
The dictators in the Islamic countries have as all other dictators tried to oppress any opposition. However they simply cannot oppress the religious opposition. This is because in Islamic tradition, contrary to Christian, there is no tradition of seperation between state and church. So if you do not recognize the Sharia law, you will not be able stay in power (Iran for example).

 

[Elta]

To put it simply.... Because the American government has continually raped and pillaged every culture on Earth.

Because fundmetalist are "good" muslims if you don't belive me read the Koran.

 

[Yoda Power]

Because fundmetalist are "good" muslims if you don't belive me read the Koran.

Actually most of the so-called "fundamentalists" values the Sharia and Hadith over the Qu'ran. Which is kinda ironic, since fundamentalist means going back to the fundament, which is the Qu'ran.

 

[Leonel]

To put it simply.... Because the American government has continually raped and pillaged every culture on Earth.

Yeah the destruction of the mesoamerican civilizations from the Rio Grande to Cape Horn? The colonization of Africa? The Crusades? Totally us.

Try and stop us!

 

[Yoda Power]

Yeah the destruction of the mesoamerican civilizations from the Rio Grande to Cape Horn? The colonization of Africa? The Crusades? Totally us.

Try and stop us!

I'm not saying he's right, but are you denying that there were Indians north of Rio Grande and that no Americans took part in the slave-trade (ok not colonization, but still) of Africa?

 

[Tee Kay]

Massive, uncontrolled inflitration of Islamic society by western ideas and materialism + centuries of living under foreign rule/oppression minus attempts to find a middle ground between Islam and democracy = Islamic Fundamentalism

 

[Yoda Power]

Massive, uncontrolled inflitration of Islamic society by western ideas and materialism + centuries of living under foreign rule/oppression minus attempts to find a middle ground between Islam and democracy = Islamic Fundamentalism

I really don't think the bolded part plays a very big role. Saying that western cultural impact have created such a great polarization is demonizing the west. The second part I agree on though. Had there been no occupation of Ottoman territories after WWI, and no Israel (I'm not advocating the removal of Israel, just pointing out that it had become the reason why many muslims hate the West), the world would have looked much better today.

 

[Irish Caesar]

I really don't think the bolded part plays a very big role. Saying that western cultural impact have created such a great polarization is demonizing the west.

I disagree. A lot of new ideas will often cause people to go back to traditions. I think a parallel could be made in modern America. There is a resurgence in Christianity in the political sphere which, I think, has a lot to do with a world of social and ethical issues raised in the second half of the 20th century--stuff like drugs, abortion, homosexual and feminist movements, and biotechnology are a shock to the system, and many believe that Christian values are the only way to go, so to speak.

I think a similar situation may be occuring in the Middle East--in a time of rapid change, people look to what they are familiar with: religion.

 

[Elta]

I could say the opposite for mexico. A politician who even mentions his religon automaticly loses his partys support.

 

[ArneHD]

Islamic fundamentalism, and indeed all fundamentalism, stemmes, at least in part, from a sense of hopelessness or uncontentness. This could be spiritual, in the sence that they feel no purpouse or meaning and turn to fundamentalist teachings to find this. It could also be economic where people without any hope of ever getting out of their own poverty bogmire, turn to militant and violent means to fight off an oppressor, whether real or imagined, that is the cause of their suffering. The former, I belive, is probably the main reason for "homegrown", western terrorism, while a combination of the latter and former hold svay in the middle east.

 

[Winner]

It is the last futile attempt of a bacwards civilization to catch up with the rest of the world without making reforms of its culture stuck in the Middle Ages.

 

[Verbose]

I really don't think the bolded part plays a very big role. Saying that western cultural impact have created such a great polarization is demonizing the west.

No, on the contrary, this is the crunch.

It's just not some kind of dastardly western conspiracy, even if that's how some of the extremists seem to want to have it.

It's the latest reaction to the challenge of western wealth and power. It's been going on since Napoleon's invasion of Egypt 1799 at least, which brought home to the Arab, Muslim, societies that they were lagging behind, badly.

So since then there have been various attempts at playing catch up. By monarchs in the 19th c. By secular Arab nationalism since the 1950's. And today it's the radical Islamists who claim to have the key to how to make Muslims and Arabs, rich and free and powerful again.

Of course, by comparison, wishing for a theocracy is a bit daft. It's just come to religion now, as the other alternatives have failed miserably. They didn't get modernisation of the ground for real, they certainly didn't make their societies rich, and in the end they turned out to be just another bunch of dictators. There's special disgust with the most recent attempt of Arab nationalism, the Baath parties in various countries for instance. This is where Saddam started out.

What makes things in the western-Mideast relationship especially touchy is the fact that the proximity to Europe has meant an irresistable opportunity for westerners to meddle. Taking over Algeria in the 1830's. Gobbling up Egypt in the 1880's. Redrawing the whole damn map in 1917, making up new countries to put up little puppet kings as reward for services rendered. Scrapping the nascent Iranian democracy in the 1950's. Supporting the Algerian coup d'état in the 1990's to prevent the Islamists from winning the democratic elections. Generally supporting "friendly dictators" everywhere (a specific US failing since the 1950's).

And then there's Israel. Which is a bit of a special case, as perceptions in the west and the ME over it diverges so widely. To Mideasterners it's simply THE example of western colonialism — inserting an entire state of our own in their midst, on top of the holiest sites of all our religions to boot. That's one hell of a provication. But it's just the kind of nefarious thing they've come to expect of us.

Of course, westerners don't quite perceive it like that, as the way it's perceived in the ME wasn't what was intended at all. But we're not going to change their minds by hectoring them, or beating them about the ears some more.
And Israel being allowed, by us, to sit on the Palestinians indefinately, while occasionally hammering its neighbours seemingly at will, isn't going to change their minds either. The ME view is that Israel IS the western occupation force, the bridgehead, left behind as the Europeans withdrew from direct control of the area in the 1950's, with the US later overtaking their role.

That was about the only thing the Arab nationalist revolutions of the 1950's got right. They made the westerners give up direct control. But it means Israel's turning up in their midst is interpreted as the direct western counterstroke to it.
For the Arab societies in particular Israels presence is part and parcel of their general troubled history of colonialist western meddling. Good luck in persuading them otherwise, as they do raise several good points.

 

[Leonel]

I'm not saying he's right, but are you denying that there were Indians north of Rio Grande and that no Americans took part in the slave-trade (ok not colonization, but still) of Africa?

Of course not! But then again, Indians north of the Rio Grande and Africa aren't ALL of the Earths cultures.

And I'm sure that Europe had something to do with the slave trade.

 

[NKVD]

If I understand you question right, you are asking why the islamic world seems to be so fundamentalist?

In that case the answer is pretty complex.

Circa the year 1500 the Middle East lost an important status, as it was no longer the link between Europe and East Asia. This resulted in less development in the area. Prior to 1500 the Middle East had been more advanced (or atleast just as advanced) as Europe, but with the American colonies Europe was able to leap forward in technology. This resulted the industrialization, which increased the % of people living in urban area, which means they were not farmers, but actual workers. As urbanism grew punlic education grew with it (it's easier to educate an urban population than an agricultural one). Education made peope demand more power, which resulted in democracy, something not existant in most islamic countries.
The dictators in the Islamic countries have as all other dictators tried to oppress any opposition. However they simply cannot oppress the religious opposition. This is because in Islamic tradition, contrary to Christian, there is no tradition of seperation between state and church. So if you do not recognize the Sharia law, you will not be able stay in power (Iran for example).

wow...that was a nice comment

 

[Princeps]

Yoda, nice theory, but it lacks logic.

The basic explanation is that war/conflict results in extremes believes. US and the west has screwed the middle east up enough many times, it is only logical that people there will have extremely negative opinions about the west. Misery results in extreme or "pure and uncorrupted" forms of governance and politics... dictatorships.

 

[skadistic]

Lets blame everyone else but islam for islams actions. I quess its to much to ask people own up and take responceability.

Islam is the way it is because of muslims they can not blame the west.