Monetary policy: Uncertainty over future interest rates should shape...
Free exchange
Analysis of Asian politics and culture, from our Banyan columnist and other correspondents. Named for a tree whose branches have sheltered great ideas
Advertisement
Monetary policy: Uncertainty over future interest rates should shape...
Free exchange
Daily chart: Middle-aged mortality in America, an epidemic to rival AIDS
Graphic detail
Mid-life crisis: White middle-aged Americans are getting sicker
United States
Science and technology
The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin: Mourning an Israeli pragmatist
Prospero
My pretty maid: Why some female birds have bright plumage
Science and technology
Just one catch: An Israeli company thinks it has found oil—in very...
Middle East and Africa
Most commented
Advertisement
Test your EQ
Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
Want more from The Economist?
Visit The Economist e-store and you’ll find a range of carefully selected products for business and pleasure, Economist books and diaries, and much more
Advertisement
Readers' comments
Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
Sort:
Here is a list of countries were apostasy (i.e. renunciation of a religion by a person) is illegal and the punishment:
Iran – (death penalty)
Egypt – (death penalty)
Pakistan – (death penalty)
United Arab Emirates – (death penalty)
Somalia – (death penalty)
Afghanistan – (death penalty)
Saudi Arabia – (death penalty)
Sudan – (death penalty)
Qatar – (death penalty)
Yemen – (death penalty)
Malaysia – (fine, imprisonment, and flogging)
Mauritania – (death penalty)
Nigeria – (death penalty)
Can you see what the countries have in common ?
The Crusades were defending their lands from hordes of invading arabs subsequent arab propaganda disgustingly rewrote history and and started this victimhood trip which lasted till nowdays and is posed to last a couple more centuries.
If there is a god I would thank him for not having me be born in a $hithole of a country like pakistan.
No Mist - You have listed the violent tendencies of Muslim groups and countries accurately. However let us dig a little further to get to the heart of this problem, by considering the following nformation:
1 - The ones most prone to use of violence seem to be the most religious/zealots Muslims - in most cases supported by the silence of the so-called moderate Muslims when the violence is directed toward kafirs especially the Jews, Hindus, Christians etc.
2 - Although the Koran is filled with the messages of peace, forgiveness etc - it also includes Muhammeds message to his followers to abstain from befriending Jews, Christians etc.
3 - As Mohammed and his followers consolidated control of Medina and the surrounding areas his message became more bellicose, especially towards the Jews, and had his army massacare some of them.
4 - Koran and the Hadiths both instruct Muslims to decieve the non-believers in to peace terms, and then to use this time to gain strength to ultimately defeat the enemy. This is the only world religion that advocates deception.
5 - Their holy book says - toward the end times 'Even the rocks will cry out - 'Lo Muslim there is a Jew hiding behind me come and slay him.'
6 - Mohammed married a six year old girl when he was in his forties and consumated his marraige with her after she was nine years old.
Don't believe me on this one, then read the Koran including the Hadiths yourself. And reflect on the grand deception currently undertaken by the Muslim Radicals with the active help and support of the liberals in the West. Look at how the organization 'CAIR' operates so forcefully and boldly in the US to keep the FBI away from potential young Jihadis in the US.
It is time for all people of decency and fairness in this world to wake up and see this evil movement for what it really is.
God help us all.
"For example, why did crusades happen ? Christianity was much older than Islam and Arabs also existed before Islam ... then why did they suddenly started fighting as soon as Arabs/Turks adopted Islam."
Because islam gave the christian nazis an excuse to invade the middle east JUST LIKE THEY ARE DOING NOW.
Also judeo christian beliefs are trash just like islam.
Western governments need 'foreign enemies' to justify the actions of their criminal military. Western governments also terrorize their own ignorant subjects with the islamic bogey man to better control them - like sheep.
Chistian nazis ???
.
The Crusades were wars of Christian aggression, not Muslim. Christians saw that non-Christians had taken control of the Holy Land and were determined to reverse this.
This wave of Islamist terror is a historical moment. There is precious little historical evidence that Muslims are more violent than any other religious group.
I'm not claiming Islam is a religion of peace anymore than it is a religion of terror. It is a malleable, flexible ideology that can be used to justify and motivate a wide variety of behaviors, just like most religion, nationalism, and political philosophy. It was once used to promote peace and tolerance under enlightened Muslim rulers, it is currently being used to promote global jihadi warfare. Just as Christianity was used to spur the Crusades, the Inquisition, and pogroms against Jews in addition to motivating charity in Africa, non-violent civil rights resistance in Eastern Europe and the southern United States, and individual acts of outstanding compassion throughout the world. Just as nationalism has encouraged social welfare programs, philanthropy, and admirable bravery during times of war as well as acts of senseless violence and genocide.
Nearly any ideology can be employed to justify any given course of action. Islam is clearly neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for terror or barbarism. There's clearly something going on in Pakistan that isn't going on in Indonesia, Tunisia, or Bahrain. What is the point of focusing on the sole factor of Islam, even if it is an admittedly relative factor, if it doesn't have predictive power? It's not clear to me what you're even suggesting. If we extirpated Islam, then Pakistan wouldn't treat it's own citizens so brutally? Do you really believe that?
>> " Extremely high rates of poverty and inequality, a vast and restive youth population with low standards of living and few legitimate employment prospects"
and why would a poor and unemployed person think of blasphemy laws, rather than arranging some food for his family ? why indeed other than if he is not a total pervert ? and which peaceful culture would allow it ?
surely it is the most ridiculous assertion I hear that poverty is responsible for blasphemy killings ... are you serious guys ???
>> " Extremely high rates of poverty and inequality, a vast and restive youth population with low standards of living and few legitimate employment prospects"
what poverty does Saudi Arabia has to face ? it has one of the highest average incomes. Even the poor of Saudia earn much better than middle class of (say) India or Vietnam. and it has been so for the last 60 years at least. Even before that it was not exactly 'grinding poor with no employment prospects', but what did it indulge in -- mosques, mosques and more mosques. why did they not build universities, libraries, laboratories ? could it be because of the eternal disregard of knowledge that Islam is ingrained with ?
Afghanistan and Pakistan are really poor and they too export terror, unleash violence on defenseless innocents.
North korea is also poor and autocratic (some similarity here, isn't it ?), but while being no paragon of virtue, it also does not bother with terror.
Vietnam and India were subjugated by colonial powers - even devastated - are still poor, are not autocratic, but they do not bother with exporting terror.
Yemen is Arabic, not as rich as Saudia, is autocratic but enthusiastically takes part in terror export.
Israel is Arabic too, but they do not send terrorists in Mecca and Media.
Singapore was also poor once and autocratic too, but did they toy with terror ? It is still autocratic but no longer poor (still no match to Saudia) but surprise of surprise, no Singaporean is interested in blowing himself up for the pleasure of killing others.
Does the above tell you that poverty is no cause of terrorism ? Does the above tell you that even autocracies are not enough for terrorism ? Does the above tell you that Islam is one of the things that occur very very frequently with terror ?
And does this not implicate Islam even an iota ? Who does seriously believe this nonsense ?
@danny ferry
>> So if there's something inherently violent about Islam, why did it just kick in?
you said it dear. it did not just kick in ? it has been going on for centuries ... it is only now that these violent thugs have got petro dollars .. it is only now that it is possible to make weapons like bombs/rifles ... it is only now that these weapons are so much in production that these thugs can easily afford them. this is what makes the problem so much magnified, not that it was absent 500 years back.
@Allfome @Danny Ferry
the people who so enthusiastically mention "Islam's historic contributions" (did it not occur to you that these could be human contributions, who just happened to be Muslims and not Islam's contribution) always forget to mention the depredations caused by it. For example, why did crusades happen ? Christianity was much older than Islam and Arabs also existed before Islam ... then why did they suddenly started fighting as soon as Arabs/Turks adopted Islam. The people were the same, one of the religion was also the same ... the only difference was the advent of Islam ... now you can turn my argument on its head and say that the people who happen to be Muslims were responsible for fighting, why are you blaming Islam ? the answer is that, Islam was the new factor here, not people. Now please do not get me wrong ... I am not in thrall of Christianity ... in fact one of you correctly identified my despise of religion in general.
Religious wars were prevalent even before Islam, but never on such a massive scale as after Islam ... never has more blood been shed other than in the name of Islam ... more temples/monasteries/synagogues/libraries/universities being destroyed other than in the name of Islam. There is no other religion in the world - absolutely none - which advocates burning/vandalizing of other peoples books/sculpture/libraries/etc ...
some may say that the written inscription are metaphoric and not to be taken literally ... but why employ such a metaphor ? why not say it clearly that Jihad is a fight against personal ills. What is such a pressing need to divide the world into two halves - believers and non believers, if all you want is to say that your inside self is divided into a good and evil side. why talk about the world at all in this context ? does it not occur that the 'metaphor ruse' is a trick to escape blame ? does it not occur to you that violence and war is really being advocated and all this talk of metaphors is just nonsense .. after all scores of Muslims have no truck with metaphorical/metaphysical meanings and under-meanings and under-under-meanings ? they just take all that at face value ?
Where am I being wrong, if I blame this ideology rather than the humans who follow it ? I am distinguishing between the creed and followers. There are many who patronizingly claim that Islam is a religion of peace while they themselves feel quite fortunate that they were not born in a Muslim family. They espouse 'Islam equals peace' so much, as if its a moral obligation to convert to Islam. Why then they don't convert to Islam and face this 'peaceful culture' in full glory ?
Now what are the real implications of this other than that they consider those Muslims as being less of a human being ... someone for whom 'Islam is good enough' ... as if they do not deserve anything better.
am i being utterly cynical here ? no sir not at all !!
see the official policy of USA regarding Arab states ... while never tiring of praising Islam, they suppress all the democratic aspirations of those people ... install puppet dictators, who flirt with Islamists as they see fit. the whole attitude of 'liberals of west' is as if they consider Muslims as undeserving of freedom.
I want to ask the readers of The Economist -- do you identify with this sham liberal brigade ? if not, then why this reluctance to take the bull by its horns ? name the "Original Vandal" and name it now ? or else accept with full honesty that Muslims are less of Humans in your eyes.
No Mist:
The dichotomy you propose, Islam being evil or Muslims being evil, is false. Neither condition need be true. Extremely high rates of poverty and inequality, a vast and restive youth population with low standards of living and few legitimate employment prospects, and the existence of a conservative elite determined to hold power are sufficient conditions for a violent population. Add in several decades (or more) of Western intervention and imperialism, and it's not clear to me what's left to be explained.
The problem with approaches like yours is that they neglect history. The point made by another poster, regarding Islam's Golden Age, appears to have gone right past you. Here is the relevant idea: if your dichotomy is true, that there must be something "bad" about either Islam or Muslims, how do you explain why this "badness" has only emerged recently, with the fall of Western colonialism? For hundreds of years, from the 8th century roughly until the Scientific Revolution in Europe, the most scientifically advanced and tolerant people in the world were Muslims. From Muslim Spain under the Caliphate of Cordoba, to Egypt and Syria under the Ayyubid dynasty; from post-Sassanid Persia to the Ottoman Empire in it's heyday, Muslims proved that neither their religion nor their race stopped that from pioneering new advances in medicine, science and technology, creating vibrant cultural, artistic, and architectural works, and tolerating their minority populations FAR better than the Europeans were at the time.
So if there's something inherently violent about Islam, why did it just kick in?
Religion should be banned. It´s just a bunch of fantastical drivel anyhow.
allofme:
My point is that the majority of violence that you see today is due to numerous motives other than religion... national and corporate interests, personal motives such as greed, vengeance or even survival and I can give you examples if you would like to get into specifics.
You could be right - perhaps. But then you may be able to explain the extremism sermons that a lrage number of Mullahs give out on Fridays, and the influence this mat have on uneducated , or Arabic Koran educated ( Basically uneducated since they don't really understand Arabic) street people.
And do you think that the fact there are no Moderates marching through the streets will eventuate in some mad mad men being influenced by the hate speeches only from the Mullahs ?
And do you think that the army sponsoring the Taliban, who are extremists, has a lot of influence on the sublimimal attitude of the general street person ?
No Mist:
My answer is yes. I would always defend Islam as a religion because I honestly believe it is not at fault.
I find it trully amazing that your comments have struck such a cord with fellow readers! I can't help but smile. The perception that has been created in your mind, and theirs, by various factors and through various sources is vivid and unflinching. You seem to be at a stage where the blame for all violence in the world must rest on one or the other - Islam or Muslims. And since for some reason you are sympathetic towards fellow human beings, your logic would point towards religion as the root of all evil.
My point is that the majority of violence that you see today is due to numerous motives other than religion... national and corporate interests, personal motives such as greed, vengeance or even survival and I can give you examples if you would like to get into specifics. But all events that are even remotely connected to any Muslim country, corporate or individual immediately get branded as being religious issues. Most newspapers and TV channels cherish the opportunity to highlight their complete lack of knowledge about Islam and include references to the Holy Quran to hypothesize about a certain event when in fact it would have nothing to do it.
We can go on arguing but considering the rigidity of your views I find it difficult to see the point. All I would say to you and everyone reading this comment is that please try to be a bit more reasonable and objective when forming opinions. A bit more independent research never hurts anybody. No Mist, have you ever read the Holy Quran? And I don’t mean one or two verses quoted out of context in print media. I mean for all your hatred against religion in general and Islam in particular, have you tried to understand what Islam is actually about? May be you don’t feel the need to, which is fine. But if you ever think of digging deeper, let the intense scepticism take a back seat and keep an open mind.
Also, and forgive me for saying this, the clarity with which you described the Musharraf incident is quite amusing… almost felt as if you were there. But I confess my ignorance, never really saw it anywhere in the media we all so unreservedly rely on.
Ashatru wrote:
Feb 7th 2011 5:14 GMT
Reply to NoMist
Another very important fact is over the last 50 years a large swath of the Middle East.
.................
The things about Pakistan sir is that every Dictator they ever had has been popular to start with.
The People think that a strong is what they need to overcome India.
The Attitude of these Idiots who Dictate over them can be summed up in what Musharaff said to his fellow Generals, after the terrorist attack on India's Parliament.
In Urdu he said to his fellow generals, as he was drinking his whisky, "We have got them by their balls"
The Idiot, who wants to c ome back to power, did not care that his country was going backward wioth the hugh foreign debt incurred to keep the army and the terrorists, or about the technological backwardness of the people, nor about Land reform, or the education of the children beyond the Unfamiliar Arabic Koranic teachings.
As they say in the West ... You get the leaders you deserve. AND Pakistan certainly has many of those.
Reply to NoMist
Another very important fact is over the last 50 years a large swath of the Middle East has been subjugated to autocratic rule because of a by-product of two issues; Western support for Israel and control of oil during post-colonialization, the cold war and now the competition between the West, China and others over shrinking resources. The mother source of funding and ideology for radical Islam is from Saudi Arabia - a financial behemoth created when the West decided to put their money into a primitive, simple monarchy versus the more messy democratic movements in populous places like Egypt and Iran in the 40's and 50's which were lead by college educated professors and students.
Im not a fan of Islam, or most Old Testament religions. If things get bad, your points are valid; its a religion that can easily mutate towards violence as Judaism and Christianity have also demonstrated. You are %100 right. If the Arabs were Buddhists or Atheists we wouldnt have these problems today. But my point is also correct - if the west had not meddled since the 50's and suppressed 100's of political groups who were representing the people instead of AngloOil or Exxon then a majority of these countries would have long ago thrown away their kings and would be struggling democracies like Brazil or India. They would be mad at their own politicians, parties and corruption instead of blaming everything on an outside power. We've created and financed a crazy collection of Monarchies and Autocracies that completely ignore the growth of human capital for a majority of these Muslim societies.
Your not wrong but neither am I.
@Allofme
it is certainly not my intention to offend anybody. and definitely not any human being. religion however is no human being. and i see no reason for it to grant 'diplomatic immunity'.
please accept my apology in advance if i rub you the wrong way.
the gist of my point is this - it is either Islam at fault or the Muslims.
- by Islam being at fault, I mean the institution of Islamic religious practice/custom/education/worship/etc.
- by Muslims being at fault, I mean the human beings who (unfortunately?) happen to be Muslims are biologically deficient .. different from the rest of human species - fundamentally flawed - probably an "inhuman" species. Please do not get offended by this -- it is just a hypothesis.
If you reject the 'Islam at fault' hypothesis then you have to accept the "inhuman" alternative. And i find it quite demeaning and insulting not to say, racist too.
The people who so enthusiastically praise Islam as a religion of peace are actually being criminally patronizing to the Muslims .. in effect insulting them with the worst racial abuse. I am sure none of the "islam praisers" actually mean it. Most really do it cause they haven't thought about the real implication of exonerating Islam. Further they believe it to somehow enhance inter-religion harmony. I am just pointing out the logical deductions of their praise.
My question is - do you still want to do it ?
Speaking of taking offence to mere words:
Liveinhope: you're an idiot...
Did the above have an impact on you? I hope it did and you felt offended. But I'll apologise because it was not my intention to offend, just to prove a point. Words do have an effect. They have the power to inspire, encourage, offend and otherwise stir emotions. That is as far as humans go. Equating God to humans is a completely separate topic altogether and I hope you realise the difference.
Separately to all readers who are hell bent to critising Islam as a religion, specially No Mist whose comments I found quite offensive, please try and realise two things:
a) Most of the countries that are predominantly Muslim have very high illiteracy rates. When you have a blend of religion that has been passed down from generation to generation (rather than the preferred manner of researching the nature and origins of religious doctrine), traditions, culture and illiteracy, it will typically result in a potent mixture of social disharmony.
b) Islamic history is full of examples where peace, tolerance and inter-religious understanding paved the way for human kind's overall progress. Almost 500 years back it was the melting pot of Muslims, Christians and Jews in Andalusia (Muslim ruled Spain) that led to a revival of art, culture and science. So please don't let yourselves be blinded by the constant barrage of anti-Islam and anti-Muslim media... and it HAS been relentless since the fall of Communism (something to think about perhaps). It would be very disappointing to have presumably educated and cognisant readers of the Economist forming such staunch views about any subject without undertaking sufficient, appropriate and objective research.
Thanks to you pakistanis..all us muslims is fucked!!