To Ianus: Civilisational entropy on the rise

This raises the question about the fanaticism of the Turks. Their fanaticism seems to have detached itself from the 'shadow of Allah on earth' who personified Islam (accepted for hundreds of years by Muslims) and transferred itself to a military commander? It seems that if some local events could achieve such a drastic transfer of loyalty from the person who personified Islam what prevents that happening in other parts of the Islamic world.

Maybe you have something to substantiate that statement, but I would think what happened in Turkey is a demonstration of the universal fact that humans, if they can be shown something/someone better than what they have, will change loyalty - an evolutionary instinct hard-wired into us.

Surely even though islam probably strengthened in Turkey its power was weakened in the world. Witness the pining for the caliphate among Islamists.

Would any self-respecting Muslim want to jettison jihad for pan-Turkism? As you have yourself pointed out the Arabs hated the Turks. I can't imagine Turkey leading a new Turikish caliphate.

For me people are. That ideas are more important than people is essentially an Islamic idea. Islamists are always calling on Muslims to defend the idea of Islam with death and destruction because that is what many verses in the Koran tell them to do. But ideas are generated by people (not by Allah). Ideas are generated, incubated, emerge from and are nurtured by people. Old ideas can be replaced/abrogated by new ideas. It happens all the time. Islamic ideas do have an iron grip on Muslims. Many believe it is made of stainless steel but I believe it is mild steel and is beginning to rust especially with the ideas corrosive to Islam being spread by the internet and modern communications. Muslims are more important than Islam.

One of the curious ideas I have noted on one blog is that some Muslims claim many of the Koran's directives were meant only for prophetic times i.e. for those directly addressed by the prophets and those not directly addressed are generally not subject to them. I do not know when this idea started. But I think it is a brilliant idea, a good beginning. If over time Muslims can accept this idea they would be free of the rock of oppressive Islamic theology pinning them down. There will have to be many a Muslim Sisyphus before the rock is worn to a pebble.

A nineteenth century European or American without being Christian would also have been a strange combination. From this post of yours not much of the Ataturk's Islamic credentials is visible. I would think if there were more Ataturks rather than Khomeinis, Turaibis, Saddams and Gaddafys in the Islamic world we would all be better off. It would put an end the dar al harb and dar al Islam schizophrenia of the Muslims.

There is not much of civilisational content in Islam as a religion. There were and are civilised Muslims in spite of Islam. The civilisational content can only increase over time. Civilisational content of the world seems to increase over time, somewhat like entropy. The order of ideologies, religions and cultures give way to the disorder of democracy (individualism over collectivism).