Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (272145)	12/25/2009 4:42:42 PM
From: Sun Tzu	2 Recommendations Respond to of 281500

I personally believe that with minor exceptions, religion has been in service of power politics rather than the other way around. This is why a while back I set up this thread: Subject 53915 Anyway, one of the best examples of religion as tool of politics is the rise of Safavids in Iran. Originally the Safavids were a Sunni tribe and at war with the Ottomans. The Safavids had their roots in mystical Islam with similarities to how Zen was practiced in parts of Japan. Many Safavid soldiers refused to use rifles for reasons similar to the refusal of Samurai for using rifles (they considered it unmanly). This posed a big problem to the leadership. Of importance is that because Islam has built-in governmental system, the head of the state was traditionally also the head of religion. Throughout Muslim history, this fact has posed a big problem to the anti-government forces, as opposing the government could be akin to opposing the faith. Lo and behold, the Safavid leader "sees the light" and not only becomes Shia, he declares himself the Mahdi. In a process not unlike the rise of Anglican Church under Henry VIII, a forced conversion of all the military and much of the population takes place whereby religious allegiance to the Ottoman king as the head of religion is seen as both treasonous and blasphemous. The non-complying soldiers were dealt with almost the same way as the Samurai were dealt with in Japan. Like Japan, the ordinary public was given military training, though the twist here was that the military training was made part of religious rituals (watch any video of Ashura/Ashoora and you get the idea.) Here are some pictures: and and of course By changing the religion of the population, the Safavids removed a strong link to the Sunni khalifat no Shia and maintained the country's independence. I am pretty sure they knew they don't have personal telephone line to the almighty. Safavids' was an intensely "religious" Shia regime. This however did not stop them from strongly supporting the Armenians and granting them unprecedented religious freedom within their territories (Armenians are Orthodox Christian). I suspect this had more to do with Armenian opposition to Turks than anything else. Another more modern example is the various "Islamic" militant groups that have been active in SEA for at least the past 30-40 years. I once heard an interview with one of the founders of one such terrorist organization. He quite bluntly stated that they started out as opposition to the government, but needed a way to gain popular support within the country. Their situation, as he described, was complicated by geography and ethnicity. Indonesia, and the surrounding areas are mostly islands and they needed to operate in areas with various ethnic groups. "Islam", he stated, was simply the common thread that connected all these islands and ethnic groups and it was prudent for them to become a "religious" organization. Whether or not your average suicide bomber realizes this or not, the issue is 80+% political and less than 20% religious. To achieve their political goals, people in the middle east have tried a variety of doctrines ranging from communism, to fascism (Ba'th party) to western intellectualism to ... All those alternatives have been successfully defeated by the US and religious fanaticism is all they have left to fight with. have a great new year and an even better new decade! ST

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (272145)	12/28/2009 12:20:39 PM
From: Hawkmoon	1 Recommendation Respond to of 281500

Fundamentalism though seeks to supplant, not simply influence the secular world. Excellent point Swan.. It's something that most of these folks out here don't want to acknowledge. It's one thing to be a secular politician pandering to the religiosity of PART of their constituency in order to motivate them, or to veil the strategic policy in a cloak of religious fervor (this is what Saddam attempted). But when it's the religious fanatics calling the shots and forcing their own religious agenda upon the politicians/leaders, it's quite another. And that's what we've seen with Hamas, which has effectively overshadowed Fatah and removed any semblance of secularity to the Palestinian cause. It's also what we saw with the Taliban, who aligned and affiliated themselves with foreign Jihadist/Terrorist groups like Al Qaida. When we can't tell the difference between the political leadership and the religious fanatics, that's when we'd better start paying attention to what they're saying to their own people. Because that's the agenda they'll be expected to carry out if they want to remain in power. But I will not disagree that these religious megalomaniacs exhorting their adherents to martyr themselves for Allah are doing it as a power grab and there is no lack of rivalry between the militant clerics. But it's power grab that relies upon a militant expression of their faith to win support. Hawk