Is martial law the key to freedom of expression in Muslim-dominated nations?

[tcaudilllg]

Your opinion.

[Creepy-male]

Probably not.

The problem with Muslim nations is the political instability that is brought about by intervention. I think people need to let those nations develop their own identity organically and over a long term. I think it's plausible for them over the course of 1 or 2 generations say 50-100 years to build a sovereign nation that is stable and their own.

Potential problems in the social sector are militiant religious extremism and oil interest in the economic sector.

I think extremism is actually the result of a repressed social identity, the nations can't develop a mature identity and so younger and brash interests are constantly arising and falling in the area which are characterized by extremism the same way a person may have a fanatical outlook when they first begin developing their identity and they feel like their identity is repressed.

[tcaudilllg]

I disagree. I think the problem is rooted in Islam itself. The concept of Jihad is vaguely defined ("carry out your inner struggle for Islam") and that enables worshippers to channel radical philosophies as a means of worship. Christianity has had a similar problem since the Reformation (the pro-life crazies are a case in point), but the example Jesus set has limited the impact. But in the Koran, Muhammad justifies violence on multiple occasions, particularly against idolators and Jews. I'm unsure that positivist extremist Muslims will ever be able to escape this precedent.

[Aquagraph]

The fact that you're talking about some Muslim countries probably speaks of your inability to make a division in the hues of secularity and fundamentalism in different Muslim dominated countries.

[Creepy-male]

Alright let's discuss this then;

I think what you said is true... if you consider religion to be a static and rigidly defined thing, but from my observations its not, it's amorphous and flexible. It evolves with culture and interfaces with many aspects of society.

The militiant islamic fanaticism you refer to I would claim is a result of the state of the current culture and isn't related to the philosophy of Islam when it was founded. I would further argue that Christianity at its inception also bear little resemblance to modern Christianity - for example the kind one would encounter in right wing interests.

What is true is that religion is a vehicle for cultural ideology and overtime it evolves to better express the interests of certain people. So I'd claim the problem isn't the religion but the interests of certain people. I think you have to isolate the interests of the players involved and examine the exact process that religion is a vehicle for these interests to really understand the problem at a more fundamental level.

In the 20th century muslim nations have adopted a kind of religiously inspired rhetoric that supports the notion of freedom fighters rising to overthrow oppression. From my understanding this appeared around the time the ottoman empire lost some of it's possessions to western colonial powers in WWI. The instability of the shift from colonialism to sovereignty gave new opportunities for people to seize political power. This void was quickly filled by interests sympathetic to the culture of religiously inspired freedom fighters, because it had the greatest build up of social influence in times of oppression.

That's how this current militiant islamic freedom fighter complex came to be, it's the result of political instability brought on by colonialism.

[tcaudilllg]

No, it's a revival of Saladinism, the push to Islamify the entire world. Colonialism just persuaded secularists to fight alongside the Jihadists.

The lines of radical Islam are cut in terms of positivist temperament and feeling valuation. As such, about a quarter of persons are potentially sympathetic to it (half of persons lean conservative, and half of persons are F dominant). This group will always be violently antagonistic to the procurement of freedoms forbidden by either Mohammad or Moses. T dominant conservatives, in contrast, are generally secular, militaristic, and open to greater social freedoms. It's the same in the U.S., but again, Christian dominance matters.

The reason Baath rose in the central Mideast was to create a regime of systematic repression of in favor of the secularists. It's not that democracy doesn't work in the Mideast -- it does -- but it can't keep the peace like it can in Christian nations. To keep the peace, you have to put constant pressure on the positivist Fs, and you have to put someone in charge to carry through on that pressure no matter how brutal it becomes. And that person, invariably, will style themselves as a crusader for a greater secular Arabia, as Saddam did.

[Aquagraph]

I want Radio's POV on this.