Blasphemy is now illegal. (in Ireland)

[myk]

Maes said:
Bingo.

I must digress, as your arguments more or less oppose what I'm saying. I'm saying that if a culture is in a ransacked situation, it requires modes of gregariousness and social organization that may seem barbaric to privileged or dominant culture. Hence, in lands were people die or suffer often, violent or authoritarian extremism becomes more common.

Explaining everything is tailored by Islam to sustain a status quo or mediocrity is the sort of thing I'm warning about. Established Islamic nations have all levels of education and reasonably low levels of illiteracy. In other places, where elites maintain their power by force amid strife, how can you have the trust and stability for a high level of development?

If Islam is a cause for ignorance or prejudice, then why were they more enlightened during the middle ages? From what I've read, they had a better grasp of commerce and links to the world than Christianity, and thus were in a position to develop learning and science. Later, the Europeans got ahold of the Americas, looted and colonized great expanses, and started to dominate the world with that leverage.

I'd say the main difference is circumstantial and economic, not ideological.

[Maes]

myk said:

If Islam is a cause for ignorance or prejudice, then why were they more enlightened during the middle ages? From what I've read, they had a better grasp of commerce and links to the world than Christianity, and thus were in a position to develop learning and science. Later, the Europeans got ahold of the Americas, looted and colonized great expanses, and started to dominate the world with that leverage.

That's a very good question, as we all heard one time or another that Arabian culture was superior than Europe at the time, Arabs invented maths, algebra, chemistry, etc. There are countless manuscripts, libraries, books, etc. such as those in Yemen, in Islamic monasteries etc.

So where's the catch? Notice that I used the term Arabs, not Islamics. Many of said achievements were pre-Islamic, or during the very early years of Islam, when the adverse effect of mainstream Islam hadn't fully engaged, yet.

About circumstances, I understand the position of those Islamic countries that were essentially under colonial rule and got nothing positive from their rulers, which also didn't give a shit about the "inferior" people they exploited.

However even large "free" Islamic Empires like the Ottoman Empire, which could hold their own very well vs the "Great Powers" of the time for centuries, were severely set back regarding cultural and scientific progress (and what's worse, they dragged the people living in the lands they controlled with them). What prevented them from crawling out from the rock they'd been living under?

One of the reasons Turkey managed to crawl out of that gutter is thanks to Kemal Ataturk: he banished the Arabic script (which had nothing to do with their language other than pleasing the clergy), he imposed european clothing and habits and managed to steer the country away from the fate that awaited other, less lucky Islamic countries. This was not without negative reaction ofc, and even today Kemalism is a cause of inner tension in Turkey (which has to live with the hard internal contraddiction of having an Islamic party ruling a country that's sailing under Kemalism for almost a century now).

So as we say in Greece, either the coastline is skewed, or we're not sailing straight (aka something's wrong with Islam as it is). Compare any Islamic state with the way e.g. Japan managed to mingle, learn from and even surpass its Western counterparts in many ways, despite its millennial isolation and being defeated in WW II. Israel managed to thrive despite its being surrounded by enemies (OK, military speaking it's backed up by the USA, but other than that they know their shit and can handle themselves better than many EU countries in the modern world).

Let's put it simply: what do they have that Islamics don't have?

Another addition: the funny thing is that the Qu'ran actually encourages believers to learn about science and improve human knowledge (actually, Allah commands men to do just that), but for some reason this aspect of the Qu'ran is obviously not taught/applied/encouraged by the dominating Islamic confessions (just like Christianity, Islam is not unified in its beliefs). The only thing a "good muslim" is supposed to study thoroughly appears to be the Qu'ran itself and nothing else. Sure, you can replace "Qu'ran" with "Bible" and you won't get an unfamiliar picture, but imagine how a country entirely ran by Christian Evangelicals or Amish would be. Yup, I wouldn't like to live in it, either.

[myk]

Maes said:
Let's put it simply: what do they have that Islamics don't have?

To expand on what I said above; the west took over the ripe Americas and got wealthy enough out of it to start the industrial revolution at full force. Since then, it has had a technological hegemony through its culture. Other cultures have a hard time catching up without selling out their character and autonomy. Ideologies adapt and change very fast given the geographic and economic conditions. Putting too much stock in will, spirit or character when judging cultures leads to abstract concepts of peoples that rival those of gods and fairies. This becomes ironic especially when one is supposedly criticizing religion. It's something the players do because they require identity, not an observer trying to make out what is going on.

You mention Japan and Israel, but both are post-war satellites of the US.

[Gez]

The Arabic golden age dates back from when they were rich and powerful, able to trade with many other countries and exploit those poorer than them. The bulk of their advances was simply preserving ancient knowledge from the Greek, or acquiring them from the India and China. They did have their own scholars and searchers, of course. People such as Avicenna and Averroes were so renowned for their wisdom and intellect that their names have been completely bastardized (the original names are Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd respectively). But mostly, they seemed to have discovered so much because we had forgotten so much; especially in the West. (The remains of the Eastern Roman Empire thrived a bit better, until that crusade that sacked Constantinople because Jerusalem was still too far away and they were tired from all that walking without action. And until they were conquered by the Turks, of course; leading to many Byzantine scholars to emigrate to Western Europe.)

Anyway, Europe had coal and iron. Once the trick to make steel was figured out, we had the best weapons, the best armors, and therefore the best armies. We conquered nearly the entire world, and became the most advanced culture this way. It's pretty simple, really. Power leads to power. Once you're on the top, you are the one with the wealth to pursue scholarly endeavors, you're the one who can trade knowledge directly with everyone else and benefit more from the deal than they do.

Now, how about those that you displaced? Before, they were the top dog, they were confident. Now they see that times have changed and they're on the decline. Therefore, progress is bad for them, so it's bad. They're trying desperately to keep the world back, to make it return to their hour of glory, and the only way they can think of is to fight against all that seems new or foreign because it could only accelerate their decay. The Arabic world today is backward because they're sore losers, basically. But it's not a phenomenon that's unique to them. You can see plenty of example of the same mentality in any other culture, including the western one. Why do you think America's Religious Right is so virulent and aggressive, with its creationism and its Conservapedia? They're seeing that Western society tends to become, basically, godless and they're trying to send everyone backward so as to retain their chokehold over the entire culture.

[Maes]

There must be some other reason why even the "top dogs" of the Islamic world, namely the Ottoman Empire that had the power to advance to Vienna and make the whole Balkans and Middle East their bitches for centuries was practically stagnated, progress wise. They weren't poor African negro slaves, nor like the Egyptians that got it from the French and then from the British.

The Ottoman empire was not poor, nor disrespected. They traded, used modern firearms and weaponry, had a modern army but otherwise they let the bulk of their society and people rot in ignorance, and held back those they occupied, too. I need to find that article which explains it better than I can how their ruling class was essentially hostile to any foreign influence, hint of progress, spark of change etc.

Again on Muslim enlightenment, put it simply there wasn't any of it left as soon as the European one started (probably way before that). They kept at the same fucking level for centuries, and if it wasn't for the 1821 revolution, WW I and the Balkanic Wars, today Greece and the other Balkan nations wouldn't be much better off than Kosovo or Albania (BTW, notice how the most fucked up Balkan nations are the ones with a Muslim majority?).

As far as history is concerned, Islam pretty much shoots itself in the foot and never gets out of its own yard, regardless of what others do. The isolationism that Ottoman Empire chose for itself (other than expansion) is only comparable to the Japanese one, only that none ever gave them a good wake-up slap. That same tendency for isolationism is present throughout all muslim countries, to some degree (again, I need to find that article...dammit).

The Ottoman Empire could have become the New America if they pulled their heads out of their asses and cut back a bit on the tunics, islamic beards and mosques. If then Islam tends to spreads to people and regions that are hopeless in the first place, then it just gets worse for everybody.

[myk]

Gez said:
The Arabic world today is backward because they're sore losers, basically.

Much of the Muslim world today isn't any more backward than many other regions or countries and there's no indication that Muslims are against development in general. As I pointed out to Maes, saying they're "sour losers" is another manifestation of judging cultures by simple character traits; that they have an "attitude problem". Describing their situation that way may make the triumphant Christian European feel good, but there's no such thing as acquiring extraneous cultural-technological gains without a cost. At a fundamental level all cultures value their identity and will attempt to defend it from domination, through religion, nationalism, socialism, or what have you. Most exchanges with dominant powers of a different cultural background are essentially scams or exploitation, hence the distrust. You have to be careful because, while you can gain some things by becoming a whore, you can also end up as a trashed up coke fiend.

Why do you think America's Religious Right is so virulent and aggressive, with its creationism and its Conservapedia? They're seeing that Western society tends to become, basically, godless and they're trying to send everyone backward so as to retain their chokehold over the entire culture.

Your definition of "loser" may have some meaning but it certainly lacks enough depth to provide a fair answer. For one, why did that stance catch on? We can see it was used politically by the Republicans, which encouraged it by association because they needed support and votes to defeat those to their left. In addition, the people that tended in that direction came from certain backgrounds which may have suffered setbacks as culture changed, especially in rural areas where many people lost their lands or jobs to the big agroindustry. People who have issues and are not heard or can't express them may vent in strange and forceful ways.

[Gez]

Maes said:

The Ottoman empire was not poor, nor disrespected.

Ever heard the phrase "the sick man of Europe"? No, that wasn't originally about the UK.

myk said:

As I pointed out to Maes, saying they're "sour losers" is another manifestation of judging cultures by simple character traits

That was more judging human nature in general by simple character traits. Everybody is a sore loser, it's just that it doesn't show itself when they win.

And my point was basically that Western culture came to dominate the world because of a geological coincidence (availability of coal and iron) rather than for its intrinsic nature, so the point wasn't to make the "triumphant European Christian" feel good.

[myk]

Gez said:
And my point was basically that Western culture came to dominate the world because of a geological coincidence (availability of coal and iron) rather than for its intrinsic nature, so the point wasn't to make the "triumphant European Christian" feel good.

Yeah, okay, you even anticipated something I said with you're the one who can trade knowledge directly with everyone else and benefit more from the deal than they do.

What threw me off there a bit was the adjective sour, as that might be taken as opposed to a good sport kind of loser, which would imply that, staying sour after the loss becomes evident, one may miss opportunities of learning from the experience. It wouldn't be unthinkable, relatively speaking, although it's not so clear how easy it is to keep a cultural group functioning and self defined (this has some genetic implications) and absorb habits and technologies mastered by the dominant group who isn't going to just hand them in a friendly manner. The losing groups seem to get:

• Passive aggressive, as it's hard for their people to show aggression directly but may "explode" here or there under pressure.
  
• Defensive, which includes rejecting things when they might seem beneficial in various ways due to suspicion against a greater power.
  
• And also tend to reproduce fast at certain points to fight their decreased security, power and health.

All these reactions, to try to sideline or outmaneuver groups that have the advantage, may require some crazy attitudes, especially from an individual perspective.

[Maes]

Gez said:

Ever heard the phrase "the sick man of Europe"? No, that wasn't originally about the UK.

Heh, 1853. By that time, Greece had acquired its independence and the Ottoman Empire was a shadow of its former self. The question is what the fuck they did in the 400 or so years that they thrived. Lemme tell ya: nothing. They just studied the Qu'ran while the world passed them by. And they were the top dogs. Whose fault is this? None but theirs. There's no "sour losing" here, other than just doing the fucking wrong thing for too fucking long.

Every bit of historical evidence and facts suggest that every region conquered by Arabs (and more generally, by Islam) soon withered away and stagnated to a level precisely dictated by the Islamic clergy, spiritually and culturally, starting with the Arabs themselves, which then strived to maintain this level for as far as possible.

Their glorious pre-islamic past is only brought upon when looking for some merits, but it has worn pretty thin by now. The only notable exceptions in the modern world are Turkey and Iran, that got somewhat redeemed because they found a driving force/ideology other than Islam to lead them into the future.

Those who sticked to just Islam...well...they pretty much stayed where they were, went backwards a bit, and just caused trouble to themselves and those around them, without contributing anything to humanity as a whole, or to themselves for that matter.

[myk]

A modern Greek talking about Turks and Arabs. Yeah, I bet that's a really level headed and balanced account of things.

This brings to mind your take on the Catholic church, too.

Don't get me wrong. It's just a way of saying. I'm quite sure that many Greeks aren't thus beset by simplistic prejudice and predictably programmed responses. At least you aren't of the advocate type. It's like you have this sort of stuff internalized in a more passive form from frequent exposure.

Like I said, I can't value the idea of reducing groups or cultures to two-dimensional concepts. It's the essence of prejudice, which is what this thread is supposed to be concerned about.

[Maes]

myk said:
[BLike I said, I can't value the idea of reducing groups or cultures to two-dimensional concepts. It's the essence of prejudice, which is what this thread is supposed to be concerned about. [/B]

Respected. I'm among the first to defend one's benefit of the doubt whenever something's apparently off, but sometimes the line between facts (even if statistical/gross approximations) and prejudices is very thin.

There's even something called founded prejudice, which in this case puts the burden of proof on Islam and its supporters, not on its detractors.

[myk]

Prejudice may be based on facts, and always has some reason to be held, but once espoused, it twists and rejects facts that contradict it to maintain its preconceptional purpose. For some practical things, like what shirt to buy, some prejudice might just ease simple choices. If it doesn't affect others and it's just a personal matter, what gives? Here you may have what's called well-founded prejudice.

Prejudice in relation to other people, however, tends to be ill-founded, especially if there's any sort of interaction or conflict, because it only looks forward and ignores causes. Under pressure, it sticks to its guns, and even adds baggage to its preconceptions to fill gaps, instead of being inquisitive.

Like here, you say the Turks "did nothing" but when breezing through the Wikipedia article about them it becomes evident they had a relatively progressive culture for the time during their heyday. To think that the Turks, which are tech-working apes like all of us, declined because they were Muslims is to put their biological motivations and economic requirements on a second level and give more credit to "choice" and the cultural and linguistic structures they adopted. The latter is more akin to faith than observation.

So yeah, Turks and Greeks tend to hate each other due to historical conflicts, but one can find concrete reasons for grievances without attributing rivals the personalities of shooting targets.

[Maes]

Maybe I'm not making my point clear: it's not about Greeks vs Turks, I was criticizing Islam for its inherent conservatism and backwardness. Greece vs Turkey geopolitics are an interesting argument, but very off topic ATM.

So backwards in fact, that it can only be compared with hardcore Christian confessions such as the Amish, Born Again, Evangelical etc. taken to the extreme, with the difference that whole societies are ruled by them.

I used the Ottoman Empire as an example of an Islamic country (well, actually way more than a country!) that did NOT suffer the usual colonial bullshit like the others, YET it progressed at a markedly slower pace than its non-muslim neighbors and ex-slaves (none of which were exactly the pinnacle of the West BTW, Greeks included), and it only gained some momentum when Kemal came along and yanked most of that bullshit out by force.

The result? They are WAY better off compared to other Islamic countries, yet still confused and divided. Now imagine how "well" those less lucky than them are. Right, not a chance.

But as I said, I really need to find that damn article, it says it all much much better than I'll ever do.

SUPER DUPER NINJA EDIT WITH REAL ULTIMATE POWER:

I had to search for italian keywords in the magazine where I first read that article (Italian Espresso, somewhere in 2007) but I came up with the guy's name: prof. Dan Diner, and the article was part of a book called Lost in the Sacred:
Why the Muslim World Stood Still.

His thesis, which you would oppose but I support wholeheartedly is that the problems of the Muslim world are these (translated from the italian article):

Time? Frozen in the dark ages. Language? Only the sacred one, that's used for praying and not for communicating, for writing large works of narration or debating scientific inquiries. And a total lack of a discovery ethic. The deep crisis, or better the cultural stagnation of the Arab world in particular and the Islamic one in general is not the Europeans' fault, it's not the West's fault, it's not just about colonialism and its legacy.

The cultural void that reigns in Islamic countries is the result of both their mentality, inclined to fatalism, and of the Islamic faith, that allows no changes, no critical reading of the scriptures.

If you still wish to get an idea about the book it, I'd say begin with the excerpt from the book's introduction.

[Belial]

I always thought there were some very rational prejudices and I still do. When something is grounded in facts, experience and statistics, can it still be called prejudice?

Being careful about my wallet when I'm around some Gypsies is common sense.

[myk]

Like I said, some simpler prejudices are convenient, but I was pinpointing prejudice that attempts to make a caricature of people. In regarding some perceived flaw from our interested or subjective perspective, it fails to observe the depth of their existence.

Maes said:
Greece vs Turkey geopolitics are an interesting argument, but very off topic ATM.

You've combined being Greek, disparaging Turks and Muslims, and the earlier apology of prejudice, however.

So backwards in fact, that it can only be compared with hardcore Christian confessions such as the Amish, Born Again, Evangelical etc. taken to the extreme, with the difference that whole societies are ruled by them.

This is silly unless you are referring to the Taliban and the like which, like their western counterparts, are an extreme within a more moderate culture. Yes, Islamic culture is certainly less liberal than the central west in general, but you can't define it by its extremists any more than you can do that to the west.

I used the Ottoman Empire as an example of an Islamic country (well, actually way more than a country!) that did NOT suffer the usual colonial bullshit like the others, YET it progressed at a markedly slower pace than its non-muslim neighbors and ex-slaves (none of which were exactly the pinnacle of the West BTW, Greeks included), and it only gained some momentum when Kemal came along and yanked most of that bullshit out by force.

And? This says nothing of causes or effects. Is Turkey more progressive and better placed in the economic market as a result of getting rid of Islamic traditionalism in the state, or did they get rid of Islamic traditions as a result of economic and political events, changes and incentives that transcend ideology, brought about by their imperial history and place in the war and development? They're still Muslims by an overwhelming majority, so that can't be such a big problem.

But as I said, I really need to find that damn article, it says it all much much better than I'll ever do.

It's hard to judge a book from an introduction, but the questions it raises seem to follow preconception. It doesn't refer to why Muslim culture looks away from development with this focus on the sacred or why secularism itself, which is what the book openly advocates, has largely failed, and refers to some of the potential causes of the different worldview, particularly the conquest of the Americas by the West, only in passing. In fact, recent history shows powers in the west have contributed various times to destroy Arab and Persian secularism on purpose, unless it served their aims. If you ask me, back in the early twentieth century the Turks got away with some secularization and autonomy mainly because they took advantage of a moment where the west was destroying itself and they based their initiative on their existing ties to advanced culture.

Various historical factors contribute to making certain supranational groups dominant, and others more stagnant, but all peoples require their fundamental cultural backdrop which creates links and social ties in organic ways that exceed rational or national organization. This is usually not understood when people come with their "special offer: rescind Muslim beliefs and history and get a 20% discount on westernization and capital investment!"

My take is that religion and other ideology may get in the way of development but does so mainly when something else is already getting in the way of human unity, dignity and progress. Treating belief and ideology as a cause of primary issues won't lead very far, if not backward, and is tantamount of giving thought supernatural qualities.

[Maes]

myk said:

You've combined being Greek, disparaging Turks and Muslims, and the earlier apology of prejudice, however.

Disparaging Muslims, yes. My point is to criticize the shortcomings of their socio-religious system (let's admit it, if e.g. Argentina became as Muslim as, say, Morocco overnight, in 20 years from now you'd be going nowhere).

Disparaging Turks? Not even close. I've used them as an example of the maximum overall "modern world" achievements and human development index attained/attainable by a muslim country in the modern world. They are, so to speak, "the best" muslims you can find. The very least they all wear pants :-p (actually they are well beyond just that)

Sadly, when drawing comparisons with pretty much any other islamic country, you have to take Turkey as a reference and work your way down from there.

myk said:

It's hard to judge a book from an introduction, but the questions it raises seem to follow preconception. It doesn't refer to why Muslim culture looks away from development with this focus on the sacred or why secularism itself, which is what the book openly advocates, has largely failed, and refers to some of the potential causes of the different worldview, particularly the conquest of the Americas by the West, only in passing.

Well, that's pretty much the author's thesis: that Islam is self-downplaying, self-restrictive and isolationist, and its problems are self-generated and self-propagating, even when no "bad westerner" interferes. The author is quite explicitly saying that, sometimes, some things are just not made the right way, and never will be. You may endorse it or reject it for what it is, nothing more to say here.

myk said:

My take is that religion and other ideology may get in the way of development but does so mainly when something else is already getting in the way of human unity, dignity and progress. Treating belief and ideology as a cause of primary issues won't lead very far, if not backward, and is tantamount of giving thought supernatural qualities.

Dan Diner obviously takes it one step further, by advocating that Islam is particularly self-impeding and intrusive, and clashes with pretty much all the ideas you'd associate with modernity: scientific research, freedom of expression, women's emancipation, the right to question and change its essence (compare it with how the various Christian churces adapted to the times and societies around them, at the expense of their own congruency, which however seems to be a good deal for everybody, else we'd still be burning heretics at the stake or something).

I personally think that this is what actually separates Islam for mainstream Christianity: its clergy is particularly intrusive and inflexible in the vast majority of cases, and their interpretation of the Qu'ran is seldom challenged/reconsidered (unlike what happens in mainstream Christianity, if you exclude particularly hardcore confessions).

Another comparison: Christian Churches eventually gave in to using languages other than Latin and Greek for scriptures and liturgy early on, while most Muslim scholars hold that the Qu'ran must be read and taught only in Arabic (even in non-arab speaking countries) and shudder at the idea of using a translation. This is IMHO very indicative of how Islam ends up herding its followers towards not only a set of moral rules and spirituality, but tends to slowly pervade every aspect of life and society, including language, way of thinking, juridic systems, government, etc. which is another major difference with the approach used by Christian Churches (which however affected many aspects of their societies too).

[myk]

Maes said:
Argentina became as Muslim as, say, Morocco overnight, in 20 years from now you'd be going nowhere.

In what context? If the world changed "overnight" and for some reason being Muslim became beneficial due to the way they organize themselves, and somehow we converted, then perhaps we would benefit. And in the real and current context, it's just impossible because we have little or nothing to do with Islam so it's a system that can't even be applied here in the first place. Remember, traditional culture and religion are tightly entwined with the very lives and reproduction of people that espouse them. In many ways it overrides shorter term politics and thought.

But I've used them as an example of the maximum overall "modern world" achievements and human development index attained/attainable by a Muslim country in the modern world.

I don't think they're better just because they're richer and more westernized. I might find it easier to visit their country than other Muslim nations, due to more shared habits and their familiarity with westerners, but it doesn't make them more interesting or admirable in all respects.

The author is quite explicitly saying that, sometimes, some things are just not made the right way, and never will be. You may endorse it or reject it for what it is, nothing more to say here.

Actually, the author is advocating changes, but there's quite a bunch to say. First, look where he's coming from; a German-Israeli Jew prone to argue against anti-Americanism writing an essay where a preexisting non-dominance of Muslims is examined, a priori attempting to pinpoint what intrinsic aspect of theirs makes them not be the big dog. This is presented in a patronizing way, at that, if you look at his comment about having empathy for Muslims. Perhaps there is some, but of a self-engrossed type.

Dan Diner obviously takes it one step further,

Don't confuse my position with moderation or a previous analytical step. I'm not more moderate than he is, but more of a materialist, seeing religion and ideology from a largely zoological perspective, not as part of a character story. Being obsessed with certain relevant societal yet insular topics, he pretty much undermines economic and western factors in the cultural comparison, reducing the issue to a matter of will and avoiding critiques to his mother and father cultures, in a fundamental fashion, in a way akin to how we might have analyzed a subject before the 20th century. He even makes his avoidance of current cultural analysis explicit, pulling back to something more traditional. So, if anything, he takes two steps back.

Christian churces adapted to the times and societies around them,

For Christianity, there is no need to see adaptation as a factor leading to Diner's conclusions, as the church adapted to the growing power of the western merchants that finally got a clear upper hand once they had a whole continent in their grasp to exploit. With such extra resources and land from which to accumulate capital, the adaptation of religion to capitalism was no great surprise.

[Aliotroph?]

I think a bit too much has happened since I last had anything to say in here. Here's some things that came to min while reading this.

Regarding medieval muslims: even when they were "enlightened" and ahead of everybody else, they were centuries behind where the West is now. Thinks like equality for all did not apply in any society at the time.

Regarding Islam as a pile of crap that drags down civilization: I've noticed any hardcore religion does this. Islam seems to have a thing for propagating amongst primitive cultures full of people who either play only for power or just think irrationally. That said, there are loads of progressive, liberal, even feminist Muslims out there.

It seems the key to progress is to convince large groups of people to think about things critically and rationally. It's been pointed out that there are lots of Evangelical groups in the US that are just nuts. Those are a bit like the types in Ireland who voted for this stupid and overly politically correct law without thinking about its consequences. The world is full of similar stupidity. I've seen it from all cultures, including atheist ones.

It's interesting that most Islamic cultures put their religion ahead of all other things in most cases. There are places in the Islamic world where non-muslims cannot go. Reminds me of Mormon temples.

[Gez]

Maes said:

Another comparison: Christian Churches eventually gave in to using languages other than Latin and Greek for scriptures and liturgy early on

"Gave in"? No, they started this way. Bringing the "Good News" to all the people was a core element of the faith after all, and when you want to bring the Good News to people who don't speak your language, there's only two options possible: either you learn their tongue, or you teach them yours. Guess which option is the most practical...

So, the early Church used the language of the people. At that time, that was "common Greek", Koine. They even used the Septuagint as their OT, rather than the original text in a smattering of antiquated Aramaic and Hebrew dialects; and the NT was written directly in Koine.

Then in Western Europe, where nobody talked Greek, they set up to translate it into Latin since that was the language of the people there. Thus we got the Vulgate, whose name pretty much says it was for the people.

So the Church was all for bringing the Word to the people. This changed because of Gutenberg. While the Church was very open to translating the Bible, it was very reluctant to let people access the book freely. It held that the faithful needed the guidance of a priest to interpret the text correctly, and jealously kept all copies of the Bible in churches and monasteries, controlled by clergymen.

Then you had a couple of German dudes who ruined everything for the Roman Catholic Church. One was Gutenberg, who introduced a way to make thousands of cheap copies of the Bible, allowing anyone to own their copy of the scriptures and access it directly. The Church lost control over who reads the text to whom, so they started wanting to control what the text reads. The other was Luther, who translated the Bible into German and modified what it said compared to the Vulgata Editio. Some times, it was motivated by retranslating from the Koine and making it closer to the original; but some times it wasn't to make it closer to the original at all; just to make it closer to how Luther was interpreting it. The Church saw that this would lead to fragmentation and schisms, and it was then that they started objecting to translations and denouncing them, as a desperate bid to retain control over the scriptures.

[Maes]

Gez said:

Then you had a couple of German dudes who ruined everything for the Roman Catholic Church. One was Gutenberg, who introduced a way to make thousands of cheap copies of the Bible, allowing anyone to own their copy of the scriptures and access it directly. The Church lost control over who reads the text to whom, so they started wanting to control what the text reads.

If we stick to just Gutenberg, that's exactly what that Dan Diner guy says:

From the introduction of Dan Diner's book:
We will ask why, in the Muslim world, the introduction of the printing press was delayed for about three hundred years. Did this delay impede the spread of knowledge, and thus development? What role did the sacred play in this? And what kind of profanation was wrought by the mechanical reproduction of writing?

From Foreword's review of Dan Diner's book:
Diner believes that the preference for oral transmission of the Koran and the difficulty in learning high Arabic (as opposed to spoken Arabic) meant that the Arab world was slow to embrace the printing press. According to Diner, “Islamic purists saw these modern machines as work of the devil challenging God’s control over time. They challenged both belief and believers. Such speeding up of the world’s pace could only end badly.” That led to a sharp partitioning of knowledge between the educated and the uneducated. He asserts that the interpretation of the Koran as the perfect word of God, with nothing missing nor extra, and the desire of some pious Muslims to achieve perfection by living as the prophet Muhammad did in sixth and seventh centuries, means that people must always look to history for answers.

[myk]

Aliotroph? said:
It seems the key to progress is to convince large groups of people to think about things critically and rationally.

But also to use what already exists of this wisely, as example goes a long way, giving those who may lack it a chance to develop such modes of thought. This is a challenge, as "teaching reason" is often conditioned by the interests of those who have a rational hegemony.

Maes said:
If we stick to just Gutenberg, that's exactly what that Dan Diner guy says:

Diner seems to say that somehow, just because they wanted, these nasty Muslim patriarchs did away with the threat of the printing press, among other things, single-handedly defeating technology as if it were something you can will away.

Nowadays there's been a surge of fundamentalist Islam that affects the world for some reasons, and incidentally, here come ideologues and academics from Israeli or western universities saying that this has been because of an inherent quality of Islam, all along. How convenient and how fitting with the recent neocon surge attributing Muslims the natural tendency to be terrorists, and the need to control oil on traditionally Muslim lands.

[Gez]

And just as a reminder that obscurantism isn't limited to Islam:
http://failblog.org/2010/01/06/field-trip-fail/

It's funny and sad at the same time.

[Aliotroph?]

Kudos to the teacher who thought to post it. :D

[Maes]

Gez said:

And just as a reminder that obscurantism isn't limited to Islam:
http://failblog.org/2010/01/06/field-trip-fail/

It's funny and sad at the same time.

The mineralogical comments on that one are mean rock.

Nevertheless, there's a statistically significant higher percentage of people living with their heads up their ass in Islamic countries, although it's usually not their personal fault.

Recently my father had to mediate with some Arab businessmen, and when taken out at a normal restaurant, they were "shocked" at how women were allowed to wear "shoulder revealing clothing" and "smoke in public".

When my father asked them what was wrong with that, they replied that this way they teased men and led them to uncontrollable, lustful acts. However, they didn't know what to reply when my father pointed them out that when a woman dresses "like that" it DOES NOT, surprise surprise, mean that sexually assaulting her is condoned, justified or encouraged in any way, even in the corrupt, sacrilegious Western world. There goes a lifetime of "teachings'. Have fun fitting-in in a world that runs circles around you.

Put it simply, these people are ASLEEP.

[Kagemaru_H]

Gez said:

And just as a reminder that obscurantism isn't limited to Islam:
http://failblog.org/2010/01/06/field-trip-fail/

It's funny and sad at the same time.

I knew it's not limited to Islam, that any ethnic group or religion has potential to practice it. It's sad how some zealot can take away great educational opportunities in the world to their followers (i.e. children).

[Belial]

Maes said:

When my father asked them what was wrong with that, they replied that this way they teased men and led them to uncontrollable, lustful acts.

That's probably my favorite part of all the Muslim bullshit I've seen or heard. Funny how it implies that Muslim males are basically animals unable to control their instincts that need their silly religion to keep them at bay. Or, more precisely, need it to force others into submission so that they don't have to worry about controlling themselves.

[Enjay]

Belial said:

...implies that Muslim males are basically animals unable to control their instincts.

Sounds like your average human male to me.

[kristus]

If you tell someone that they are something enough times, they will act accordingly.

[myk]

Enjay said:
Sounds like your average human male to me.

Hah, in fact, it's only relative. In most situations in the west, we don't see females walking around with their boobs jiggling under the sun or males parading their dangling nads for all to see. Mainly because we think it's obscene or sexually provocative.

[Maes]

Again on the Islamic concept of considering nonbelievers/infidels "fair game": one of my father's colleagues had visited egypt in the 70s, and had long, blong flowing hair. In one of the many suks/bazaars, there was a short, black beduin guy that harassed him continuously by grabbing his ass in public. Repeatedly.

At first my father's colleague told him to buzz off in a menacing tone anyone would understand, especially from a guy over 1.90m, however the beduin persisted, and so he got pissed and smacked his face (actually he beat the guy up pretty badly)

Needless to say, he was arrested, and when he stated that the damn beduin was grabbing his ass in public, the reply he got from the interrogating officers was that "He was doing right, you were in the wrong. Only women have long hair, so either you cut it as to stop provoking a good muslim or you take what's coming to you".