Why Arab countries have so miserably failed to create democracy, happiness or (aside from the windfall of oil) wealth for their 350m people is one of the great questions of our time. What makes Arab society susceptible to vile regimes and fanatics bent on destroying them (and their perceived allies in the West)? No one suggests that the Arabs as a people lack talent or suffer from some pathological antipathy to democracy.
Is religion the central problem? It seems like the religion has a built-in mechanism to perpetuate war and misery: "Jihad." The idea is to carry on fighting at any cost, and to train your children to believe that they too should fight.
If it weren't for the religion, would the people regularly blow themselves up in the middle of civilians?
However, this doesn't quite ring true. Long ago, their culture was the best in the world, and some of the most important scientific advancements were made by Arab scholars. Were they highly religious back then? If so, why was their society stable in spite of warfare being a core tenant of the religion? What changed?
The 'resource curse' of sitting on top of vast reserves of cheap (-to-extract) oil doesn't help. A lot of war-torn African countries have a similar problem - there are plenty of unfussy buyers offering enough money to a) be worth killing for and b) maintain a large system of patronage.
It's impossible to overstate this problem. Plentiful oil (or diamonds, or whatever) means 15% of the population can control the other 85% because they have modern weaponry and the money to buy off potential threats.
If your country doesn't have easily convertable (to cash) resources, you have to give the average guy some incentive to support you.
Jihad is an important concept in Islam, war is not.
The word jihad is often used in the context of internal and personal struggle, and physical (or external) jihad becomes the struggle against oppression or prosecution.
Perhaps what changed between the past and today is the shift in focus from an 'inner' jihad to an 'outer' one. Militants justify their violence with the chaotic events of the last century; these are perceived as oppression, much of it due to western countries.
It's not a straight continuum from peaceful jihad in the past to violent jihad today, though. Early Islam expanded greatly through conquest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquests), establishing much of what we today consider the Muslim world. Islamic jurisprudence eventually regularized the practice of conquest by establishing the division of the world between the Dar al-Islam ("house of Islam"), countries which had adopted Islam and were therefore not to war against each other, and the Dar al-Harb ("house of war"), countries that had not adopted Islam and were therefore fair game. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam...)
None of which is to say that Islam is an inherently violent religion; just that it historically has oscillated back and forth between peace-seeking and external aggression, rather than starting as one and coming today to be the other. (Which is not an uncommon thing; Western Christianity has done much the same, with Crusades and Inquisitions flaming up and dying off as militancy in that faith waxed and waned.)
Islamic jurisprudence eventually regularized the practice of conquest...
It did not regularize anything. That notion does not carry any weight, it was an attempt by some scholars to "model" the landscape, without backing by the Quran or Hadith, hence, not based in Islam proper.
Religion is born of culture, and serves in part to preserve it (and prevent it from changing). A culture that fosters violence will almost certainly develop a religion that fosters violence. Where there are religions prone to violence, it is a good bet that there is a culture that is prone to violence. A violent religion isn't the cause of violence, it's the a symptom of it.
When religions prone to violence are introduced to a culture that is not, the religion is often modified to be more in line with local customs. The opposite is also true; excuses for existing local violent or oppressive customs are found in their new religion.
I'm afraid I don't, that was just me pontificating. Mostly gathered from observations on how different people with different senses of morality get wildly different readings from the same religious book, almost invariably a reading that is convenient for themselves.
I think most people agree that at least most religions are man-made (all, if you are an atheist, but I think that most theists would agree that religions other than their own are man-made). If a particular religion is man-made, then it is made within the context of some particular culture. While it is possible that the new religion introduced new and novel ideas, more often than not I think the religions that found acceptance in their host-culture did not rock the boat too much. Those religions therefore largely reflect the cultures that they were created in. If a religion advocates stoning gay people, then chances are the culture in which it was created was also pretty on board with stoning gay people.
I think that religions are adapted or re-interpreted when they are introduced to other cultures that already have different values. Lots of things that were taken literally by the host culture suddenly become metaphorical. Holidays that were previously cherished by the new culture are wedged into their new religion under flimsy pretenses. Etc.
How is Sri Lanka atheist? Their civil war was a secular conflict and I agree that religion isn't a necessary precondition for war, but extrapolating from secular causes to atheism seems a bit of a leap.
"The inhabitants of the earth are of two sorts: those with brains, but no religion, and those with religion, but no brains." --Abul ʿAla Al-Maʿarri blind Arabian philosopher, poet - circa 11th century
what has any of this to do with "Hacker News"?[shrug]
ah well, if anyone wants to understand anything about middle east history they ought to start with Nina Paley: http://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/
What changed? Europeans intentionally destabilized the region in efforts to keep Colonial power for as long as possible, then the US and Russia used it as a battleground for the Cold War.
Comments
Why Arab countries have so miserably failed to create democracy, happiness or (aside from the windfall of oil) wealth for their 350m people is one of the great questions of our time. What makes Arab society susceptible to vile regimes and fanatics bent on destroying them (and their perceived allies in the West)? No one suggests that the Arabs as a people lack talent or suffer from some pathological antipathy to democracy.
Is religion the central problem? It seems like the religion has a built-in mechanism to perpetuate war and misery: "Jihad." The idea is to carry on fighting at any cost, and to train your children to believe that they too should fight.
If it weren't for the religion, would the people regularly blow themselves up in the middle of civilians?
However, this doesn't quite ring true. Long ago, their culture was the best in the world, and some of the most important scientific advancements were made by Arab scholars. Were they highly religious back then? If so, why was their society stable in spite of warfare being a core tenant of the religion? What changed?
The 'resource curse' of sitting on top of vast reserves of cheap (-to-extract) oil doesn't help. A lot of war-torn African countries have a similar problem - there are plenty of unfussy buyers offering enough money to a) be worth killing for and b) maintain a large system of patronage.
It's impossible to overstate this problem. Plentiful oil (or diamonds, or whatever) means 15% of the population can control the other 85% because they have modern weaponry and the money to buy off potential threats.
If your country doesn't have easily convertable (to cash) resources, you have to give the average guy some incentive to support you.
Jihad is an important concept in Islam, war is not. The word jihad is often used in the context of internal and personal struggle, and physical (or external) jihad becomes the struggle against oppression or prosecution.
Perhaps what changed between the past and today is the shift in focus from an 'inner' jihad to an 'outer' one. Militants justify their violence with the chaotic events of the last century; these are perceived as oppression, much of it due to western countries.
For more on the concept of Jihad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
It's not a straight continuum from peaceful jihad in the past to violent jihad today, though. Early Islam expanded greatly through conquest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquests), establishing much of what we today consider the Muslim world. Islamic jurisprudence eventually regularized the practice of conquest by establishing the division of the world between the Dar al-Islam ("house of Islam"), countries which had adopted Islam and were therefore not to war against each other, and the Dar al-Harb ("house of war"), countries that had not adopted Islam and were therefore fair game. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam...)
None of which is to say that Islam is an inherently violent religion; just that it historically has oscillated back and forth between peace-seeking and external aggression, rather than starting as one and coming today to be the other. (Which is not an uncommon thing; Western Christianity has done much the same, with Crusades and Inquisitions flaming up and dying off as militancy in that faith waxed and waned.)
It did not regularize anything. That notion does not carry any weight, it was an attempt by some scholars to "model" the landscape, without backing by the Quran or Hadith, hence, not based in Islam proper.
There are regions that have atheistic people blowing themselves up. Sri Lanka is one example of this. Religion is not necessary.
As for your question, Islam was a lot more inclusive before the mongol hordes sacked Baghdad and brought an end to the Caliphate.
Religion is born of culture, and serves in part to preserve it (and prevent it from changing). A culture that fosters violence will almost certainly develop a religion that fosters violence. Where there are religions prone to violence, it is a good bet that there is a culture that is prone to violence. A violent religion isn't the cause of violence, it's the a symptom of it.
When religions prone to violence are introduced to a culture that is not, the religion is often modified to be more in line with local customs. The opposite is also true; excuses for existing local violent or oppressive customs are found in their new religion.
Do you have any more sources on these claims? (I'm genuinely interested to read more about this)
I'm afraid I don't, that was just me pontificating. Mostly gathered from observations on how different people with different senses of morality get wildly different readings from the same religious book, almost invariably a reading that is convenient for themselves.
I think most people agree that at least most religions are man-made (all, if you are an atheist, but I think that most theists would agree that religions other than their own are man-made). If a particular religion is man-made, then it is made within the context of some particular culture. While it is possible that the new religion introduced new and novel ideas, more often than not I think the religions that found acceptance in their host-culture did not rock the boat too much. Those religions therefore largely reflect the cultures that they were created in. If a religion advocates stoning gay people, then chances are the culture in which it was created was also pretty on board with stoning gay people.
I think that religions are adapted or re-interpreted when they are introduced to other cultures that already have different values. Lots of things that were taken literally by the host culture suddenly become metaphorical. Holidays that were previously cherished by the new culture are wedged into their new religion under flimsy pretenses. Etc.
Your pontifications were interesting to read nonetheless!
How is Sri Lanka atheist? Their civil war was a secular conflict and I agree that religion isn't a necessary precondition for war, but extrapolating from secular causes to atheism seems a bit of a leap.
"The inhabitants of the earth are of two sorts: those with brains, but no religion, and those with religion, but no brains." --Abul ʿAla Al-Maʿarri blind Arabian philosopher, poet - circa 11th century
what has any of this to do with "Hacker News"?[shrug] ah well, if anyone wants to understand anything about middle east history they ought to start with Nina Paley: http://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/
What changed? Europeans intentionally destabilized the region in efforts to keep Colonial power for as long as possible, then the US and Russia used it as a battleground for the Cold War.
"The idea is to carry on fighting at any cost"
Where are you getting this from? The idea is to fight in self-defence, not "at any cost".