An ally in Islam?

[studiodekadent]

A school of Islamic philosophy that may provide excellent assistance in demolishing the Wahabbist psychotics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27tazili

Quotes: "...Mu'tazilis relied on logic and different aspects of Greek philosophy..."

"Mu'tazilah relied on a synthesis between reason and revelation."

" They, as the majority of Muslim jurist-theologians, validated allegorical readings of scripture whenever necessary."

"They celebrated power of reason and human intellectual power. To them, it is the human intellect that guides a human to know God, His attributes, and the very basics of morality. Once this foundational knowledge is attained and one ascertains the truth of Islam and the Divinity of the Qur'an, the intellect then interacts with scripture such that both reason and revelation come together to be the main source of guidance and knowledge for Muslims."

It seems the Mu'tazili have had a strong influence on liberal (in the Classical sense) movements within Islam; "The existence or applicability of Islamic law is questioned by many liberals. Their argument often involves variants of the Mu'tazili theory that the Qur'an is created by God for the particular circumstances of the early Muslim community, and reason must be used to apply it to new contexts." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_movements_within_Islam

Further encouraging data: From the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_philosophy

"Aquinas knew of at least some of the Mutazilite work and the Renaissance and the use of empirical methods were inspired at least in part by Muslim works taken in Spain in 1492."

"The most significant achievements of early Muslim philosophers are:

the development of a method of open inquiry to disprove claims, the ijtihad, which could be generally applied to many types of questions (although which to apply it to is an ethical question); willingness to both accept and challenge authority within the same process"

I think this shows that Islam is capable of being 'tamed' in a manner similar to how Christianity was. If any religion accepts at least some degree of reason into its corpus, the rest is only a matter of time.

[BaalChatzaf]

I think this shows that Islam is capable of being 'tamed' in a manner similar to how Christianity was. If any religion accepts at least some degree of reason into its corpus, the rest is only a matter of time.

We have run out of time. We are within a few years of a nuke being shipped, trucked, carried into to a major American city by a Jihadi. You idea is well intended and at least 50 years late.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think this shows that Islam is capable of being 'tamed' in a manner similar to how Christianity was. If any religion accepts at least some degree of reason into its corpus, the rest is only a matter of time.

We have run out of time. We are within a few years of a nuke being shipped, trucked, carried into to a major American city by a Jihadi. You idea is well intended and at least 50 years late.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob,

I disagree, but I do agree that we have to keep up our guard. I don't see what one thing has to do with the other, though. Let the military do military things and let the intellectuals work on the ideas. Why should one stop because of dissatisfaction with the other or doomsday predictions?

My own prediction is that mainstream Islam is going to become separated from state as official policy before too long and individual rights are going to be incorporated. This is growing and the increased publicity about it will not stop. On the contrary, the wheels are now in motion. I printed out the Rand Corp. study on establishing Moderate Muslim networks. I have not read it yet, but I have no doubt that the interest of mega-big business (those big businesses with government privileges) is one of the strong influences on moderating Islam.

Andrew,

I have no doubt that many Salafis (Wahhabis) are psychotics, but using this term removes individual moral responsibility and paints a collective with too broad a brush. There is another problem inherent in too emotional an approach in your otherwise wonderful post. You miss important differences.

Salafi (Wahhabi) Islam is a fundamentalist branch of Sunni Islam, although it is strongly differentiated and rejected by more traditional Sunnis. It is a very pesky thing for the West because of the massive funding from Saudi Arabia for outreach all over the world. But it is not the only Islamic trouble area for the West. Iran is probably the purest form of Church/State integration in the Islamic world and the form of Islam there is Shia. It is different in several key aspects. We desperately need to start understanding these things.

Anyway, thank you for some excellent information. It is heartening and my own position is equal to yours: "If any religion accepts at least some degree of reason into its corpus, the rest is only a matter of time."

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

As a secular state the U.S. cannot fight a religious war. That'd be like declaring war on 1.2 billion people.

The U.S. can take out countries that sponsor terrorists, like Syria and Iran, one way or another, with Saudi Arabia on the "B" list.

The war in Iraq has turned out to be even stupider with worse consequences than I ever began to imagine, and I was against it from the beginning. If you have limited resources--and every country's resources are limited, including the toleration of the citizenry for foreign military endeavors (war)--you don't squander them on "C" targets like Iraq. You send in the army only when there is nothing else you can do to achieve rational objectives, but Bush did that as his first real choice and approach to dealing with a country he could have effectively bullied.

--Brant

Edited May 17, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I have mostly stayed out of specific war discussions, but I recently started looking into Richard Clarke. Of evrything I have read and seen discussed, this guy makes the most sense to me. At least he was there under different Presidents and probaly still has one hell of an information structure together. He is not too popular with neocons, but if reason is to be the standard, his stuff looks pretty good to me.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

My own prediction is that mainstream Islam is going to become separated from state as official policy before too long and individual rights are going to be incorporated. This is growing and the increased publicity about it will not stop. On the contrary, the wheels are now in motion. I printed out the Rand Corp. study on establishing Moderate Muslim networks. I have not read it yet, but I have no doubt that the interest of mega-big business (those big businesses with government privileges) is one of the strong influences on moderating Islam.

Dream on. Read this, please:

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/...icle_detail.asp

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I skimmed it. I was reminded of the old argument that true Christians are not what all those people out there are. True Christians are [fill in the blank] because of [fill in the blank].

It depends on your world view, I guess. Some people hold as fundamental that human nature is universal and that man has volition. Others hold as fundamental that he is a puppet of genes, environment and chance. Both include elements of the other, but they start and build from different places.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Some years ago I worked a long side several followers of Islam who were of the more fundamentalist stripe. Some of them were fairly young (below 21). I would occasionally suggest they try to improve themselves. Their answer was that their state was "God's will. Have any of the other OL's experienced this attitude? It strikes me that such people may not want to anything including killing others.[

Edited May 18, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[studiodekadent]

Salafi (Wahhabi) Islam is a fundamentalist branch of Sunni Islam, although it is strongly differentiated and rejected by more traditional Sunnis. It is a very pesky thing for the West because of the massive funding from Saudi Arabia for outreach all over the world. But it is not the only Islamic trouble area for the West. Iran is probably the purest form of Church/State integration in the Islamic world and the form of Islam there is Shia. It is different in several key aspects. We desperately need to start understanding these things.

I should say, as much as I f**king hate the man's economic ignorance, Michael Moore raises some VERY important points about this in Farenheit 9/11, about Saudi investments in the USA. Although I certainly have my own take on causes/consequences rather than Moore's Marxist economic reductionist explanation.

The house of Al Saud, the current rulers of Saudi Arabia (obviously), has a huge amount of money invested in various government-connected American industries. That, plus the oil resources (which, may I add, are nationalized by the Al Sauds), provides a monumental amount of money into Saudi coffers, much of which goes to spreading their fundamentalist school of Islamic thought.

One of the businesses the Saudi's have an interest in is a defense contractor that makes the Abrahms tanks (I think). Hence, Straussian nutcase neocons launch terrible war, buy tanks, Saudis profit, Neocon war makes Arabs hate the US even more than they currently do, hence increases appeal of Wahabbist Islam, which Saudi money funds.

May I add, Straussians love to promote religion, any religion. It seems they have many similar beliefs about the nature of the good society to the Al Sauds.

Its like a mixture of Saction Of The Victim and the evils of Statist Corporatism. The West quite literally funds its own destroyers, and because certain government-linked corporate entities keep getting cash from their business relationship with the Saudis, as well as certain government-linked Straussian intellectuals get a political climate that they favor, they wont revoke their sanction.

[Chris Grieb]

Bush and other American leaders should have prominent Islamic dissenters in photo opts and events.

Some years ago I saw the Saudi ambassador on an interview show. He said that the US government had never voiced a complaint about the Saudi support of the more radical parts of Islam. If is he telling the truth the US should start telling the Saudi government that this is unacceptable.

Edited May 24, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Its like a mixture of Saction Of The Victim and the evils of Statist Corporatism. The West quite literally funds its own destroyers...

Yes!

Some years ago I saw the Saudi ambassador on an interview show. He said that the US government had never voiced a complaint about the Saudi support of the more radical parts of Islam. If is he telling the truth the US should start telling the Saudi government that this is unacceptable.

Yes! Yes!

This is reality.

However, the ones gaining from all this much prefer to blind people with the ideological approach that all Muslims are corrupt (or Islam makes them that way). As it is impossible to do something about that on a scale of 1.5 billion people, they gainers safely keep the bucks flowing into their pockets and attention OFF of the fact that one of the main sources of the whole Islamist problem is THE main source of their government-protected bucks.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

The Saudi leadership is very double-minded with there liking many Western items including scotch and blondes. They also support the worst of their fundamentalists.

I wonder if a little blackmail might work wonders. A conversation with the Saudi ambassador where he is told that some of recent purchases will be sent to imams.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I wonder if a little blackmail might work wonders. A conversation with the Saudi ambassador where he is told that some of recent purchases will be sent to imams.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

Now that is effective foreign policy.

Michael