I almost agree with you about everything, but...

Submitted by Spare me (United States), Mar 3, 2010 at 17:21

I do not believe that religion is the cause of all or most of the problems and conflicts in the world today (paraphrase). As an agnostic and a fan of Karl Marx, I believe that the conflicts that are tearing the world apart are due to the age-old battle, not between good and evil, or believers and not-believers, but rather between the haves and the have-nots. Religion is just a nasty symptom of socio-economic turmoil, and it is interesting to note that Islam grows proportionally in places where there is poverty, illiteracy, ignorance, and desperation.

Religion is used by the Haves to appease, placate, and, most of all, manipulate the Have-Nots. Islam is so tenacious and hard to eradicate, however, even among westernized, educated and affluent Muslims, not because it is so "glaringly apparent" as a Truth, to quote our fellow blogger, Deborah the Judge, but rather due to a certain rigidity of thought of the culture that spawned it. The culture of the Muslim world is one that has not undergone a paradigm shift from blind adherence to the dogma of the past to the thoughtful action of the individual. It is, "Medieval" in the sense that Medieval scholars valued memory, rigid adherence, and exact reproduction and repetition over originality, individualism, and creativity, which were "Enlightenment" values. The Enlightenment's values of thinking outside of the box, of the individual freeing himself (it was usually a "him") from the "yoke of his servitude" (I am trying to quote Kant, but can't at the moment), is rooted in the graeco-roman tradition. Islam does not, have an equivalent tradition and corresponding paradigm shift, so, I do not think that it is possible for Islam to develop a viable moderate, secularized culture like their Christian and Jewish counterparts on its own. They just do not get it.

There are, however, Muslims who do not adhere to Islam and are critical of it, and who are influenced by Western ideas. There is a Bengladeshi Muslim, for example, who advocates for Israel's existence. Several years ago his office was destroyed and his mother imprisoned, tortured and killed because of his opinions. There was an Arab scholar who attributed the writing of the Koran to Muhammed's rich and very literate wife (who also had access to scribes and a great library). He was thrown from the window of his third floor university classroom by Muslim university students. Or the women who have come forth in anger and rebellion against the misogyny that permeates Islam and resulted in their torture and abuse at the hands of their fathers, brothers, and husbands. I think that their actions are the beginnings of a paradigm shift in the Muslim world. I don't think that they speak only to politically correct Westerners. So we should not take this monolithic stance against all Muslims. I think we should take a monolithic stance against religious fundamentalism in all its forms. A Southern Baptist lynch-mob can be mighty scary. I say, send 'em all to Saudi Arabia.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".