I disagree with the summation of Harris and Dawkins' statements regarding fundamentalism. As far as I am aware both authors in their books and speeches have taken pains to point out that the characteristic they are targeting is extremism, especially violent extremism, fuelled by religious fundamentalist belief of any description. We happen to live at a point in time where this translates into effective terrorism emanating from within the muslim faith, but again I believe both Harris and Dawkins have rightly stated that we are arguing only questions of slight degree when we compare the actions of these fanatics to their christian equivalent. The political motivations might differ greatly, but the motivation to commit atrocity derived from religious belief is remarkably similar. Indeed both men have drawn attention to Bush's frequent overtures to his own religiously naive beliefs when explaining or justifying his bellicose foreign policy.

Dawkins deplores it because he sees it as an atavistic tendency in human development. Harris is more inclined to the view that it is of much more immediate danger to human existence. But neither man identifies the problem as one solely with the muslim faith. Its solution is not in eliminating any one faith but in eliminating the compunction, encouraged by religion, to place a value on ignorance and the resultant ignorant adherence to irrational concepts. As long as a sufficient proportion of humanity continues to do so their intellectual disability will be utilised to manipulate their behaviour in the ostensible name of religion but  in reality in order to fulfil political goals.

I think your answer is "some of both".  Ayaan Hirsi Ali does a good job of explaining how corruption causes people to support fundamentalists in order to have some stability in society in Infidel.  There's no reason to believe that Islamic fundamentalists don't believe in the violence they advocate.  We've all seen enough actions aligning with rhetoric to believe they will follow through on what they say if they have the opportunity.  Therefore, they are a credible threat.

That said, U.S. based companies feeding of corruption and our government's interference help corrupt officials hold onto power in many countries and makes the underlying problems worse.  The poverty and exploitation do send people to religion for comfort and stability in their crappy lives.  Then the visible and dangerous fundamentalists can be blamed for all the problems in a given region. 

I would keep in mind that tolerant christianity's emergence does coincide with higher levels of education and financial security for the masses in the west.  It does seem like pick-and-choose Islamism ought to be an option for Islamic societies eventually.  I don't think that will happen while so many people live in poverty and want to escape from their lives. 

Sorry for such a late respond. I forgot all about this question.

Thanks for the detailed responses.  I think Answers in Genesis made an interesting point. However, there is one element missing. One nation is the military super power and the others are 3rd world countries.  The USA has a history of overthrowing democratic leaders and supporting ruthless dictators in the Middle East.

No middle eastern country has invaded or attacked America's homeland. It is America that is attacking their land. This is how we know its imperialism. America attacks weaker countries and occupies them. Id like to focus on this. There is no muslim country that can rival the level of destruction America causes.

I also agree that many in the Middle East want us to be like them, today. However, If one follows the history of the middle east, most of the countries were isolationists and secular before Western countries invaded them. After western countries exploited middle eastern countries, we begin to see the rise of muslim extremism and foreign aggression.

As for calling them barbarians, that's just propaganda.  Every imperial country calls the victims of imperialism derogatory names. Its a way to dehumanize them, so we no longer feel bad for committing immoral acts.

I can't believe I missed this when this was first posted.

The fundamental attribution error is previelent in U.S foriegn policy and pretty much led to the tortures in Gitmo Bay and Abu Ghraib prison and the suspension of human rights in the U.S, including warrentless searches or Arabs/Muslimsetc...

It also gives the U.S an excuse not to look in the mirror with their policies.

"Well, they're evil Arab/Muslim terrorists! We have to protect you from them!"

Then they "protect" us and the Mid East gets more pissed at us.

It's a deadly cycle that needs to end.

It's another Zionist plot carried out by Christianists!

the subject of the middle east is extremely complicated.  anyone who wants to understand the religious situation there should check out hans kung's brilliant (and rather long) trilogy, "the religious situation of our time."  his basic philosophy is that there will be no world peace until there is peace between the religions, and no peace between the religions until the religions understand each other, hence his presentations of the three abrahamic religions.  while i find his philosophy both simplistic and utopian, his trilogy is unparalelled in its objectivity, erudition, and readability.  anyone who would want a basic understanding of the histories of the three major religions and the underlying religious issues of the middle eastern conflicts, i would direct to these books. 

the last volume, islam, just came out in english in 2006.  the volumes on judaism and christianity came out in the early '90s, so you get to see some development and, unfortunately, some of kung's hopes shattered.  he comes down very hard on both bush administrations in these books.  kung is a swiss catholic priest and theologian and one of the leaders of the world council of churches.  he and the current pope have known each other since seminary and represent two very different trends in modern catholicism: kung is a tireless ecumenicist who is constantly on the outs with the vatican and ratzinger of course is a staunch reactionary.  despite his potential christian bias, kung's objectivity, as i said before, is truly commendable, and i consider it a plus that his trilogy has offended conservatives in all three religions.

well, the reason i'm reccomending these so strongly is that they really are the most concise place to go, and the amount of detail necessary to become conversant in the middle eastern conflicts just cannot be condensed into an internet forum without the danger of grave misunderstandings.  that being said, islam definitely glorifies the idea of a holy warrior, but so does almost every other religion.  islamic terrorism is a fairly modern phenomenon, and essentially reactionary against superpower imperialism.  these superpowers include not only the united states, but of course colonial britain and the soviet union as well.  while these latter superpowers no longer exist, the effects of their foreign policies linger on and still inform the ideologies of islamic extremism.  there would have been no moujahadeen without the soviets, no iranian revolutionary guards without the shah of iran and his american backers, no hamas without aggressive israeli settlers.

the extremists are as necessary to the US bourgeoisie as the communists once were.  without bogeymen, there is no need for a military.  without a military, there is no need for military contracts.  without military contracts, lockheed, honeywell, et al. do not get paid.  if they don't get paid, the politicians don't get bribed.  if they don't get bribed, they have no interest in perpetuating bogeymen.  and so the circle continues.

of course islamic extremists are dangerous.  but they're also underfunded and poorly equipped.  i'm not a conspiracy theorists, but the idea than bin laden cannot be found, when i know goddamn good and well the CIA can pinpoint exactly when i scratch my ass in my backyard if they want to, well...something smells funny. 

Am I the only one fed up with the lie that islam was peaceful until we invaded them?

Regarding islam: Do a quick bit of research, it's always been a religion of force, spread by the sword (and now I.E.D. or suicide bomber).

Attacks against the U.S. and its interests began in earnest in 1983 with the Beiriut Marine Corps base bombing, but it goes way back.

The line in the Marine Corps song "The shores of Tripoli" reference the fight against the Barbary Pirates, all good moslems.

Any religion is bad, scietology and islam lead the way, IMHO.

http://www.americanwest.com/pages/indrank.htm

But we'll keep that in the "oops, no longer relevant" department.

yes, BUT...

not typically.  the islamic sphere of influence spread by the sword, the religion did not, and most muslims, including extremists, are not interested in enticing you into becoming a muslim.  the fact of the matter is, the great muslim empires (umayyads, abbasids, safavids, seljuks, mamluks, mughals, ottomans) didn't want converts to islam, just like the roman patricians didn't want any more patricians.  non-muslims were a great source of revenue, in the form of poll taxes and such, and it's established that christians, jews, and zoroastrians enjoyed more religious freedom under the muslim empires than under their contemporary christian counterparts, as long as they were willing to obey the laws and accept the status quo.

even during the classic arab expansion under the four "rightly-guided" caliphs in the generations immediately following the death of muhammad, a non-arab converting to islam was severely discouraged, except in the case of very prominent or wealthy persons.  the idea was that islam was a religion for the arabs, and the arabs were meant to inherit the earth, not muslims in general.  non-arab muslims were second-class citizens right up until the end of the umayyad caliphate, when the persians and turks began to outnumber the arabs in the empire.

there was no wide-scale aggressive islamic missionary activity.  unlike medieval catholic europe, there were no forced conversions.  islam has never been a religion of apologetics, and in general muslim apologists only arose in response to challenges from the christian world.  islamic missionary activity is a relatively recent phenomenon, and still very undeveloped when compared with christian evangelism.  unlike jesus in the gospels, muhammad never gave any kind of "great commission."  islamic expansion was on the whole purely political.

even when islamic extremists decide to become aggressive against another religion--like for example the hindus and sikhs in the punjab (though in this case usually in reaction), or the coptic christians in present-day egypt--it is with the object of suppressing or annihilating the devotees of the other religion, not converting them.  muslims have traditionally been satisfied with political power, and as long as the other religious groups beneath them stay docile, they have no interest in changing their beliefs.  in fact, like jews, muslims are far morely likely to devote their apologetic and missionary energies to converting each other.  historically, a sunni is more likely to engage in unprovoked religious debate with an ahmadiyya, an ismaili, or a druze than a christian, jew, or atheist.

does anyone else see a pattern. Muslim country=crap

You know what's gold? The situation in Pakistan right now. If Alison's argument (parroted by a theistic arm chair political scientist) held any water (that Al Qaeda strictly exists due to U.S. intervention, only attacks belligerent nations, etc), the Pakistan armed forces shouldn't be having to hunt them down right now, should they? I mean, I thought they were just fighting for their own national sovereignty? And yet here their own fucking country (they no longer have any appreciable public support in Pakistan. The locals feel that they're too fundamentalist and batshit insane. Go figure) has to go and track them down (the funny part is that they're still out blaming America, France and Britain as the aggressors, even as the bullets of their own countrymen buzz over their skulls. lolz). If they're fighting for the interest of their country and the liberty of the arabic public, shouldn't they be willingly surrendering to the Pakistanian authorities? Shouldn't they acknowledge their loss in public support and agree to come to terms with the progressive movement in Pakistan?

If Alison was right, of course they should. But they aren't, because she's wrong. They have no interest in American intervention, Pakistanian sovereignty or the public good. America is simply their bogeyman; the source for which they can claim all evils originate (in the same way the Iranian government is right now sewing propaganda through Twitter that America is behind the protests in Iran). As Obama brilliantly put it in a recent press conference, "...America sometimes makes for a wonderful political football."

Al Qaeda is interested in the 'good old days' when women were considered property, justice was meted-out wth beheadings and there were no Jews in their 'Holy Land'. Period. End of story. The rest of it is bullshit they invent to gain some political support from ill-informed moderates. It isn't a matter of poverty (Osama Bin Laden himself is hardly cut off from his family, whom are among some of the most affluent individuals on the planet, and used to recieve a large allowance from them), education (people of all walks of life have been suicide bombers for Al Qaeda, including doctors, businessmen and architects), nationality or even ethnicity. The only common thread is their feverish devotion to their religion and the literal word of the Koran. 

Ahhh the good old "religious apologist" argument

I have no clue as to whether or not say, Robert Pape or Mia Bloom are Theist or atheist, [if you study logic, it may very well be irrelevant. What DOES matter is their arguments.] Both have credentials and don't qualify as "arm chair political scienctists"

But Scott Atran has gotten into arguments with Sam Harris, and I'm pretty sure that Atran is atheist.

All three have something in common" They actually study suicide terrorism. Atran has conducted interviews with Jihadists for example.

Oh and BTW Kev, now that you brought up Pakistan, they are clearly steeped in Islam, why aren't they supporting Al-Qaeda?

...How is having a ridiculously obvious bias within the subject you're researching irrelevant? Robert Pape is a practicing member of an orthodox religion. That means he has a pretty clear predisposition towards defending religious practices.

This is pretty funny. I guess (according to Kramer), Pape doesn't actually discount religion having a negative effect.

Oops.

You sure you read that book, Alison? Or maybe you just read it and applied your own prejudices?

Now I think i'll have to have a go at it.

EDIT:

...Wait. Wat?

Oh. Oh, man. Alison, you lying little bitch.

(Don't worry - I said that with a smile on my face)

You intimated that Pape said Al-Qaeda was acting in response to the U.S. occupation of Iraq. But that's not what he said at all. He claimed they were acting in response to the U.S. occupation of Saudi Arabia.

That's so funny I'm crying. Oh, man. I can't believe I even bothered debating this the whole time. I thought this was a real book.

Saudi Arabia has never, ever, ever been occupied by the United States. Like, ever. OPEC has had the U.S. (and most other idustrialized countries) by the balls for decades due to their monopoly on the world's oil supply. Saying that the entire planet's trade agreements and alliance of convenience with OPEC counts as an 'occupation' is an obvious absurdity. I mean, fuck, Dubya was on a first name basis with many of the Saudi leaders. They got along just fine.

So, Bin Laden has a problem with that. Well, fine - but then Pape seeks to legitimize Bin Laden's world view by backing-up his claim that Saudi Arabia is 'occupied'? Gee whiz, substantial portions of Alberta are being 'occupied' by China, then, and the U.S. is pratically being besieged by Mexico.

What a joke.

First recorded suicide attacks were in the 17th century by Dutch against the Taiwanese, unless you want to cite Sampson and his temple shaking rage against the Philistines?

It was moslems trying to disengage the percieved invasion by infidels. You may want to start with the muslim brotherhood trying to run off the British in 1935 from Palestine.

Not quite true. The first bombing of the WTC (that everyone seems to forget) in 1993 was on U.S. soil and allegedly in response to the first Gulf War. Before that we had the 1983 bombing of the Marines Barracks, perpertated by early hezbollah trying to rid Lebanon of infidels. It goes as far back as muredrous cult of islam once mo was in a position to be aggressive. It is a fascist ideology bent on world domination. Read the quran and/or The Politically Incorrect Guide to islam.

My point to the delightful Pineapple is that they (moslems) are the ones STILL doing it.

Why? Does it bother you?

No, that's Pape's. I'm not saying he's COMPLETLY right, nor is he completly wrong.

Well, according to Scott Atran and Marc Sageman [a bunch of religious apologists I'm sure]

only 13% attatended Islamic religous schools, and 25% were deeply religious when young.

And Atran's studies shows that the terrorists know little about Islam, and "self-indocternate" withing a social group over the injustices they see the west doing.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5701806759199654816

I'm bumping this topic. 

I've noticed that those who disagreed with me did so without taking into consideration American imperialism. It always comes back to Islam being irrational, which is off topic to my point. I am left with a couple questions. Do those of you who disagree think that America is not an Empire? Or do you think America being an empire is a good thing?

War is how humans have evolved to deal with the problem of overpopulation/lack of resources. Unless and until there is a consensus on an alternative means to deal with this fundamental problem(or even recognize that this is the true common enemy of all mankind), wars must play themselves out. This debate about who is more moral in all this is ridiculously mind numbing.

Just build a tight bomb shelter with plenty of supplies. Pop your head out once in a while to see if anyone else has survived with whom you can breed. This is the best we can do until humans evolve into a more rational species.

Well, at least now we have a pretty definitive answer as to whether Muslims fanatics are simply 'reacting' to American Imperialism, as real as said imperialism may be:

No.

Does Denmark have a history of imperialism? Has Denmark recently invaded or occupied Muslim countries? 

And yet we've had Danes killed in the streets, Danish embassies put to the torch, Danish ambassadors threatened... because the Danish PM wouldn't censor some cartoons in a newspaper.

It is an interesting dilemma for western nations though...on one hand you have enshrined laws about freedom of expression and religion, and on the other you have a large group of people who's opinions and religion require an overthrow of the liberal western state.

It is interesting to watch it all play out.  Honestly, unless the Muslim moderates and liberals start to balance the literalists in a more aggressive way I don't see how things can reach equilibrium.

I'm not even sure I've heard of any potential pathways to get fundamentalists to liberalize.

If you can force certain standards, sure.