[Fatfis]

(Original post by Brandmon)
The problem is simply that people are too ignorant to know what the enemy is. Of course we need to completely oppose any fundamentalism. Yet some people are too ignorant to differentiate between genuine Muslims and extremists Muslims, so they consider all Muslims as the enemy. Which is not only wrong, it is also counter-productive since it starts alienating those Muslims who are actually reasonable and simply gives the extremists another ally.

I would agree, such opinions are detrimental to elimination of fundamentalism when we lump cultures together in a form of Racism, but this excludes genuine critiques that must be made Of Islam as a faith - while a different issue it is Important not to bend over backwards out of fear of offence and rallying Muslims to the fundamentalists so we may criticise where it is due.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Brutal Honesty]

(Original post by Fatfis)
The general fear of the west would more be to do with muslim Theocracy e.g Iran than any Muslim Democracy e.g. Tunisia because in Theocracies you have Religious fundamentalists in control of the state, In Iran's case on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon - religious fundamentalists with a nuke, when these people harbour literal beliefs about the end of the world and the return of the messiah it is dangerous them having their fingers on the button no? And have we the west of yet ever declared war on the Entire population of a Muslim country, no we declared war on The Taliban, who in Afghanistan sheltered international terrorists of alkieda and ruled by fear and oppression. The Enemy is the fundamentalist - and what will be seen by them as grounds for hostilities will be such things as educating woman, maintaining a religiously plural society - so if you want avoid hostilities with these people, we the west will have to capitulate a lot before they are happy.



This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

There is absolutely no evidence something like this will happen. This begun as a democratic movement and the Syrian rebels are the most pro-western and democratic out of any of the revolutionaries come out of the Arab Spring. This seems to be a case of 'oh they're Muslim they must be pro-theocracy' when there's no evidence to suggest this is the case. Also highly hypocritical considering Britain has a theocratic head of state who we're currently celebrating.

[Fatfis]

(Original post by Brutal Honesty)
There is absolutely no evidence something like this will happen. This begun as a democratic movement and the Syrian rebels are the most pro-western and democratic[/URL] out of any of the revolutionaries come out of the Arab Spring. This seems to be a case of 'oh they're Muslim they must be pro-theocracy' when there's no evidence to suggest this is the case. Also highly hypocritical considering Britain has a theocratic head of state who we're currently celebrating.

I was not denying such a thing, I agree with you, of course the movement of the entire Arab spring is primarily a democratic rebellion against ridiculous oligarchies, but it is not unheard of for fundamentalist sects within such a movement to hijack the revolution and form more theocratic institutions, as was seen In Iran when iotolah Homani took control. Wth would I make the point about all muslims being ,pro-theocracy' which is just religious totalitarianism it's a stupid point and I resent you assuming it of me, it's also a ridiculous comparison between the benine British monarchy completely excluded from all formal power in this country, and a religious dictatorship, call me a hypocrit if you like but I still find it logically coherent to despise theocracy in all it's manifestations while being British - simply because we maintain a useless relic.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Brutal Honesty]

(Original post by Fatfis)
I was not denying such a thing, I agree with you, of course the movement of the entire Arab spring is primarily a democratic rebellion against ridiculous oligarchies, but it is not unheard of for fundamentalist sects within such a movement to hijack the revolution and form more theocratic institutions, as was seen In Iran when iotolah Homani took control. Wth would I make the point about all muslims being ,pro-theocracy' which is just religious totalitarianism it's a stupid point and I resent you assuming it of me, it's also a ridiculous comparison between the benine British monarchy completely excluded from all formal power in this country, and a religious dictatorship, call me a hypocrit if you like but I still find it logically coherent to despise theocracy in all it's manifestations while being British - simply because we maintain a useless relic.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Yes the Iranian revolution ended up with the Ayatollah Khomeini in charge, the Russian revolution ended up with the Bolsheviks/Lenin in charge and the Long March ended up with Mao Zedong in charge. And? Pointing out that revolutions don't always end up well isn't an interesting nor relevant point. Elections don't always end up with nice people in charge either, should we be terrified next time there's an election? You even conceded that there's different scales of theocracy and one can have a perfectly liberal, democratic society whilst maintaining a functional theocratic head of state, unelected religious figures in government and a state religion. Theocracy is therefore not by default religious totalitarianism.