Islamic Fundamentalism
http://www.global-vision.org/sacred/fundamentalism.html
Take the case of the relationship between the Islamic fundamentalists and the rest of the world. Although this relationship is fraught with publicity, misundersanding and violence, my choice of these particular protagonists does not imply that Islamic fundamentalists are more pertinent to this discussion than any other group. My point is that the violent behaviour which everybody feels so outraged by came about in a historical context which included conquest by the Egyptian and Roman Empires, the spread of the latter's state religion (Christianity), crusades and centuries of religious prejudice, European colonialism and the drawing of political boundaries which suited the needs of the victors in WWI and WWII, followed by a prolonged ideological conflict between two superpowers which obliged Muslim peoples to choose (or be chosen by) either one side or the other, but suffer the consequences of both! Neither of the superpowers' value systems harmonised with the traditional Islamic one, which favours pious religious practice and a distinctly non-consumerist vision of the future. But the rich countries' growing demand for cheap oil - and thus for political influence throughout the Arab world - resulted in the establishment of puppet governments set up, funded, and militarily equipped by the West. These governments serve the demands of their ruling élites and their western masters, but not the basic human needs of their own people. The resulting authoritarianism, poverty, corruption, human rights violations and inequity fuels the fires of fundamentalist resentment. What the West sees as "Islamic fundamentalism" is the backlash to our own economic and political violence.
Take the case of the relationship between the Islamic fundamentalists and the rest of the world. Although this relationship is fraught with publicity, misundersanding and violence, my choice of these particular protagonists does not imply that Islamic fundamentalists are more pertinent to this discussion than any other group. My point is that the violent behaviour which everybody feels so outraged by came about in a historical context which included conquest by the Egyptian and Roman Empires, the spread of the latter's state religion (Christianity), crusades and centuries of religious prejudice, European colonialism and the drawing of political boundaries which suited the needs of the victors in WWI and WWII, followed by a prolonged ideological conflict between two superpowers which obliged Muslim peoples to choose (or be chosen by) either one side or the other, but suffer the consequences of both! Neither of the superpowers' value systems harmonised with the traditional Islamic one, which favours pious religious practice and a distinctly non-consumerist vision of the future. But the rich countries' growing demand for cheap oil - and thus for political influence throughout the Arab world - resulted in the establishment of puppet governments set up, funded, and militarily equipped by the West. These governments serve the demands of their ruling élites and their western masters, but not the basic human needs of their own people. The resulting authoritarianism, poverty, corruption, human rights violations and inequity fuels the fires of fundamentalist resentment. What the West sees as "Islamic fundamentalism" is the backlash to our own economic and political violence.