Contrasts
She even acknowledged that it had religious roots, at least partially -- which is much more realistic than most government officials in Western countries ever get close to being. "Minister slams 'macho' Muslim culture," from The Local, November 26 (thanks to all who sent this in):
Family Minister Kristina Schröder slammed on Friday what she sees as a growing tendency to violence stemming from a "macho culture" among young Muslim men.The minister told daily Wiesbadener Kurier that while discrimination and disadvantage were partly to blame, there were also religious and cultural roots to this propensity to violence, which was revealed in two studies commissioned by her ministry due to be released on Friday.
"We must not construct any false taboos here: there is a macho culture among young Muslim men that glorifies violence and which also has cultural roots," she said. "The tendency towards violence among young, male Muslims is clearly higher than among non-Muslim, native youths," she said.
It stemmed from perceived slights upon their honour, which they defended with violence, Schröder said.
"Social disadvantage and discrimination are important factors, but they are not sufficient as an explanation," she said. "There is a co-dependence between religiousness, macho norms and tendency towards violence."
Her comments came amid an ongoing debate about immigration, integration and Islam in Germany. Former central banker Thilo Sarrazin kick-started the issue with the publication of his book, "Abolishing Germany - How we're putting our country at jeopardy," which argued partly that Muslim immigration was dragging Germany down.
Chancellor Angela Merkel later declared that multiculturalism had "failed utterly," while Bavarian Premier Horst Seehofer went so far as to suggest immigration from Muslim countries should be stopped.
Schröder indicated that discussion of the issue had been hampered by political correctness. Religion was part of culture and culture shaped behaviour, she said.
"If someone made an issue of the disproportionate tendency to violence among young Muslims, it was always said that this was a blanket judgement. But that's not the case," she said.
It was also striking that there was a growing hostility towards Germans being reported, she said.
"German children are not infrequently bullied in schools just because they are German. We must put up with that no longer," she said.
Schröder called for stronger efforts for the education of Islamic religious leaders in German universities - something the federal governments has already embarked on by creating university courses for Imams.
"We have to make those who shape values in the Muslim community responsible. That is first of all the Imams," she said. "Then another picture of society, of the roles of men and women and of violence, would soon be communicated in the mosques."
The problem Schröder doesn't face here is that the law of the supreme being is not negotiable. Even imams trained in German university courses will be studying the same Qur'an that fire-breathing jihadist imams study. It is unclear how she thinks "another picture of society" will "soon be communicated in the mosques" -- what will change to create the circumstances in which such a thing could happen?
A Mumbai-style attack on any European parliament would be a short-cut to wakening up European politicians to the ever present danger of Islam. Schröder's comments, while welcome, still don't say directly that Islam is biggest problem facing all free societies today.
I wouldn't wish a Mumbai-style attack on a European parliament, but it would cut short the wait for a full understanding of what Islam really means by around 20 years.
Every cloud has a silver lining!
The minister is only repeating a proven fact. The more religious male muslims are the more violent they are and the less integrated they are in society.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlY3TFIz_x0&feature=player_embedded
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/0,1518,698948,00.html
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=de&ie=UTF-8&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/0,1518,698948,00.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.de&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhg6mnWWh5MuLKN8udoN-METIck59A
Now, I don't want to sound like a broken record Robert. But, this is the first scientific proof of a correlation between islamic religiousity and violent behaviour. I wonder why you have been ignoring this.
Last month the Danish chairman of the Council of Co-operation in the Muslim Street of my Danish city complained that Danes in the area were victims of harassment and racism by Somalis and Arabs. He was gotten rid of immediately and it didn't help him one bit he is very much to the left and has done a great deal of work for the cause of integration and co-operation: he had said what cannot be said. Only ethnic Danes are racist.
@ bhigr:
Probably because the Google Translate product approaches gibberish every so often.
I translated a piece from German - an Interview with the imam Idriz of Munich -
a few days ago, but it is not ideal that a Dane translates from German to English. There is need of someone stronger in German and English.
O.K. Steffen, that is a good point. Translating an interview is a lot of work, but I'll give it a try. This is from a television show, in which Christian Pfeiffer, professor for criminology of the institute for studies in criminology was interviewed about his research results. This is just a teaser, because it is a lot of work. If Robert wants to know more, then please indicate it:
"We provide data, which indicates, well..., the more religious they (muslim youths) are, the less they think of themselves as Germans and the difference is enormous! Does it have to do with the fact that the Imams dissimenate a (certain) message? A message, which Rauf Chailar, an islamic scholar with Turkish roots, has summarized thus: "They preach in churches (mosques): "Remain a Turk in your heart and stay away from the unbelievers!"" This kind of message cannot have an integrating effect and he (Rauf) has proven by his studies that the majority of imams from turkey act in this way..."
Now, if you want to have a complete transcript and translation, the please give me a sign. I don't want to spend hours translating without any feedback...
OH, these results are actually derived from a common research project funded by the federal ministry of interior affairs and performed by the criminological research institute of Niedersachsen (lower saxony). So the family minister is merely giving voice to proven scientific facts. Otherwise she would certainly not have the courage to state such a politically uncorrect thesis.
From the article:
The problem Schröder doesn't face here is that the law of the supreme being is not negotiable. Even imams trained in German university courses will be studying the same Qur'an that fire-breathing jihadist imams study. It is unclear how she thinks "another picture of society" will "soon be communicated in the mosques" -- what will change to create the circumstances in which such a thing could happen?
_________________________________________________
This is to the point. Mrs. Schröder has got some good understanding of the problem, but the idea that training imams in Germany would contribute to a solution is pretty naive. The best solution is to ban Islam like the NSdAP (the Nazi party) was banned in Germany after WW II.
""A Mumbai-style attack on any European parliament would be a short-cut to wakening up European politicians to the ever present danger of Islam. Schröder's comments, while welcome, still don't say directly that Islam is biggest problem facing all free societies today.
I wouldn't wish a Mumbai-style attack on a European parliament, but it would cut short the wait for a full understanding of what Islam really means by around 20 years.""
They know it, they reckonise it and they know Muhammad's teachings and examples, the average native German won't be surprised at any point while reading Jihadwatch.
Well, in response to this study, the politicians thought that the lack of integration is due to the imams not the message of the quran. Well, they are wrong. If they read a little in the quran, they would know that muslims shall not take non-muslims as friends/helpers/protectors (Awliah).That is the last straw the politically correct politicians are clinging to. So, if you train the Imams in Germany, then the problem is going to be solved!? Ridiculous;-)
Now, several professor of law have pointed out that islamic law is unconstitutional. The scientific community has reacted against teaching imams at German universities, because they fear that their research freedom could be impeded. The freedom of scientific inquiry is actually guaranteed by the German constitution. However, the constitution states also:
Art 5(3): Arts and sciences, research and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from
allegiance to the constitution.
Therefore, this whole project is most likely going to be dealt with before the German constitutional court. My opinion is clear: Educating Imams at German universities is unconstitutional because Islam is unconstitutional.
""I wouldn't wish a Mumbai-style attack on a European parliament, but it would cut short the wait for a full understanding of what Islam really means by around 20 years.
Every cloud has a silver lining!""
It simply won't change anything. No, I correct myself. I will increase the security inside the parlament and it will accelerate the terms of rendition to more absurd and hardline islamic demands.
""Family Minister Kristina Schröder slammed on Friday what she sees as a growing tendency to violence stemming from a "macho culture" among young Muslim men.""
She just monitors the problem... but there is no solution.
With you all the way, Bhigr! Good writing!
To me also it seems ridiculous that training Imams in German Universities will solve the problem. That of Muslims not feeling themselves citizens of the state they live in.
Actually with their religion bringing in and supporting DIFFERENT LAWS, with the intention of eventually bringing in a Different legal system. As Anjem Choudary and now the imam of Shariah for Belgium, arrested this week in Brussels, openly admit.
For me, politicians like our Wilders and your Stadtkewicz, may brainstorm about a policy in which it is striven for, worldwide, that:
Citizens of states should be asked to either be loyal to it's country's laws and legal system or leave. Then, in future people who are democratically inclined may leave Islamic countries towards Democratic countries and people who are theocratically Islamic inclined may leave Democratic ountries towards these Islamic countries. Our politicians may strive towards a situation that that is considered normal. Everybody should be happier living in a country in which he/ she wholeheartedly supports or at least considers them the best laws to live under in comparison.
Neutrality and variety and freedom of opinion and private religions were always and are always to be sacrosanct, but what these Muslims are practicing can be considered treasonous and seditionous. And collaborating with known enemies of Democratic nations and their laws.
And being Muslim in a Democratic nation can in future at least be considered to be adherent to an ideology that simply is:
Too vulnerable to totalitarian misunderstanding and exploitation. And that choice probably will in future have some consequences, just like choosing to speed or drive through red lights now have consequences.
@ bhigr:
Christian Pfeiffer has been mentioned by Robert Spencer this summer. And there have been a few references to the study since then, though not as many caused by Nikolaj Sennels' "Among criminal Muslims".
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/new-german-study-boys-growing-up-in-pious-muslim-families-are-more-likely-to-be-violent.html
@ Steffen Larsen
Well thanks Steffen, I overlooked that.
But then, Mr. Spencer seems to underestimate the significance of these studies. These results are among the sharpest weapon he has in a discourse with the likes of Reza Aslan. Non-integration is not due to islamophobia, it is due to Islam - i.e. the Islam currently taught by Imams. This is scientifically proven, at least in Germany.
Furthermore, these studies allow politicians to state politically incorrect truths without being labeled racists. People can same unashamedly state that Islam prevents immigrant integration and promotes violence among its followers. This is now an indisputable fact.
Now, whether this is the "true Islam" or not is of no concern. Let Reza ramble on about the imaginary Islam that is peaceful and tolerant. The real Islam taught in today mosques is neither tolerant nor peaceful and that is the only thing that matters.
"The problem Schröder doesn't face here is that the law of the supreme being is not negotiable. Even imams trained in German university courses will be studying the same Qur'an that fire-breathing jihadist imams study. It is unclear how she thinks "another picture of society" will "soon be communicated in the mosques" -- what will change to create the circumstances in which such a thing could happen?"
Almost five years ago the Syrian born political scientist Bassam Tibi, Professor of International Relations, who is a Muslim gave some possible answers to those question. But very few took him seriously.
Tibi pointed out that:
"Muslims have to give up three things if they want to become Europeans: They have to bid farewell to the idea of converting others, and renounce the Jihad. The Jihad is not just a way of testing yourself but also means using violence to spread Islam. The third thing they need to give up is the Shariah, which is the Islamic legal system. This is incompatible with the German constitution."
And he proposed to use the principles and methods from the post war denazification programme to turn Muslims into good democrates:
"SPIEGEL: You have often said that the integration of Muslims in Germany has failed. And that integration can only be achieved by "educating a civil society." But who should do this and who decides who needs to be educated?
Tibi: I am thinking in particular about the re-education programs which were carried out in Germany after the Third Reich. Social studies teachers and political science faculties were given the task of turning young people into democrats. That worked then. Why shouldn't we have a similar model for Muslims? In youth clubs, or during Islamic instruction in schools. Of course it takes a long time, 50 years say, but we have to start."
About multiculturalism and tolerance Tibi offers this insight:
"Pluralism and tolerance are pillars of modern society. That has to be accepted. But pluralism doesn't just mean diversity. It means that we share the same rules and values, and are still nevertheless different. Islam doesn't have this idea. And Islam also has no tradition of tolerance. In Islam tolerance means that Christians and Jews are allowed to live under the protection of Muslims but never as citizens with the same rights. What Muslims call tolerance is nothing other than discrimination.
Tibi realizes that Islam must be reformed to be compatible with constitutional democracy:
"Tibi: I support reforming Islam and I am not alone in this. Next month (March 2006) I'm meeting 20 other Islamic reformers in Copenhagen. We are trying to reinvigorate the tradition of enlightening Islam. But our mistake is that we are not united.
SPIEGEL: And apart from these scientists and thinkers?
Tibi: It would be much more important to have enlightened Imams. But when the Alfred Herrhausen society wanted to invite a German-speaking Imam with European ideas to a discussion, no one could be found. In the end they took the Grand Mufti of Marseille. And why are there such people in France and not here? Because the French state and French society has worked on developing them."
By using the phrase "reinvigorate the tradition of enlightening Islam" Tibi is referring to the historic theological battle inside Islam between rationalists and irrationalists that took place almost a milennium ago. The irrationalists won this battle of ideas and Islam never had an Enlightenment as we did in the West. The Muslim mind closed for new ideas and the Islamic civilization committed intellectual suicide.
In the words of Roger Scruton who wrote the foreword to Robert R. Reillys brilliant and much praised book "The Closing of the Muslim mind", 2010:
"The roots of Western civilization lie in the religion of Israel, the culture of Greece, and the law of Rome, and the resulting synthesis has flourished and decayed in a thousand ways during the two millennia that have followed the death of Christ.
Whether expanding into new territories or retreating into cities, Western civilization has continually experimented with new institutions, new laws, new forms of political order, new scientific beliefs, and new practices in the art. And this tradition of experiment led, in time, to the Enlightenment, to democracy, and to forms of social order in which free opinion and freedom of religion are guaranteed by the state.
Why did not something similar happen in the Islamic world?
Why is it that this civilization, which sprang up with such an abundance of energy in the seventh century of our era, and which spread across North Africa and the Middle East to produce cities, universities, libraries, and a flourishing courtly culture which has left a permanent mark on the world, is no in so many places mute, violent, and resentful?
Why does Islam today seem not merely to tolerate the violence of its fiercest advocates, but to condone and preach it? Why is it that Muslim minorities in Europe, who migrate in order to enjoy the benefits of a secular jurisdiction, call for another kind of law altogether, even though so few of them seem able to agree what that law says or who is entitled to pronounce it?
In this lucid and fascinating book, Robert Reilly sets out to answer those questions. His purpose is to show that Islamic civilization, which led to the urbane princedoms of Andalusia in the West, and to the mystical laughter of the Sufis in the East, underwent a moral and intellectual crises in the ninth to the eleventh century of our era, when it turned its back on philosophy and took refuge in dogma.
Several factors are responsible for this sudden ossification , but the principal one, in Reilly's view, was the rise of the Ash'arite sect in the tenth century and the defeat of the rival sect of the Mu'tazalites.
The Ash'arites found a potent voice in the Imam al-Gazali (d. 1111), a brilliant philosopher and theologian whose tormented spirit found refuge at the last in a mystical oneness with Allah. Human reason teaches us to question things, to discover things, and to make new laws for our better governance. Hence reason was - for al-Ghazali - the enemy of Islam, which requires absolute and unquestioning submission to the will of Allah. In his celebrated treatise "The Incoherence of the Philosophers", al-Ghazali set out to show that reason, as enshrined in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and their followers, leads to nothing save darkness and contradiction, and that the only light that shines in the mind of man is the light of revelation.
Although al-Ghazalis arguments are soundly refuted by Averroes (Ibn Rushd) in his "The Incoherence of the Incoherence", Islam rushed to embrace the Ash'arite doctrine, which made so much better sense of the ruling idea of submission. Averroes was sent from Andalusia into exile, and the voice of reason was heard no more in the courts of Sunni Muslim princes.
The assault on philosophy went hand in hand with an equally determined assault on law and jurisprudence (fiqh). The early Islamic jurists had sought to reconcile the Qur'an and the traditions with the demands of ordinary justice, and had developed a system of law which could be applied in the developing circumstances of social and and commercial life. The interpretation of the law was subject to the study and amendment by the individual effort (ijitihed) of the jurists, who were thereby able to adapt the brittle injunctions of th Holy Book to the reality of the Muslim societies. In the tenth or eleventh century of our era it became accepted that "the gate of ijtihad is closed" - as al-Ghazali himself declared.
Since then Sunni Islam has adopted the official position that no new law can be entertained, and that what seemed right in the twelfth-century Cairo or Bagdad must seem right today. Should we be surprised, therefore, if nobody can find a clear way of reconciling the Shari'a with the facts of modern life and government, or that a leading jurist from Al-Azhar, the ancient university in Cairo, can rule that it is okay for a man and a woman who do not know each other to be alone together, provided he sucks her breasts?
Philosophy and dogma, civil law and divine law, are always hard to reconcile. But in the Islamic world the tension between them has taken on a special character, since it involves a conflict between two rival interpretations of the Qur'an.
On one interpretation, that of the Mu'tazalites, the Qur'an was created by God at the moment of its revelation. It therefore stands to be interpreted in terms of the circumstances in which it was revealed, and of God's purpose in revealing it.
On the Ash'arite interpretation, the Qur'an is uncreated, being coeval with the Almighty, his eternal word that owes nothing to the contingencies of the life in Muhammad's war-torn Arabia.
Reilly's account of this dispute is particularly illuminating, since it suggest how very difficult it will be to secure, in our dealings with the self appointed leaders of the Sunni community, the kind of flexible interpretations of the faith that would permit the growth of a real and lasting tolerance towards those who reject it.
Reilly's brillant account of the long-term effect of the "closing of the Muslim mind" makes sobering reading. Muslim societies, s he shows, have rarely adapted to the forms of modern politics, to the outlook of modern science, or to the demands of global migration.
If Reilly is right - as he surely is - then the resentment that animates the Islamist terrorist is to be blamed not on our success, but rather on Muslim failure. This failure is not the inevitable result of Islam; rather, it is the effect of an act of cultural and intellectual suicide, which occurred eight centuries ago.
Reilly offers a cogent explanation not of WHAT went wrong but WHY it went wrong. He locates the sources in a deformed theology gestated in the ninth and tenth centuries and in the dysfunctional culture that emerged from it. The sh'arite orthodoxy, he argues, has bequeathed to modern Islam THE WRONG CONCEPT OF GOD.
Policy makers beware: unless you are ready to admit that you are facing an essentially theological problem in the Middle East, do not go about prescribing solutions, or you may actually make matters worse - particularly by creating the false impression that economic, sociological, or political programs can fix what is, in fact, a delusion of faith. They cannot.
As Reilly persuasively argues, the problem has to be addressed at the level at which it exists. The great merit of this book is in clearly stating the terms of this profound theological problem, the crisis to which it has led, and finally, the choices which are now starkly laid out before contemporary Muslims. As Reilly shows, there are Muslims who know the way out of the morass, but seldom are they able to find audiences or regimes that are willing to listen to and to protect them.
The outcome of the struggle within Islam today will have major consequences for all of us. In helping us to understand that struggle, this book serves a purpose for which we should all be profoundly grateful."
For further reading Reilly among many other important studies list two recent books by Bassam Tibi: "The Challenge of Fundamentalism", 1998, and "Islam's Predicament with Modernity", 2009.
Islam should of course be harshly criticized as Robert Spencer so eminently does here on Jihad Watch and in his books, but we should also help the Muslims who seek a way to modernize Islam with all the support we can muster.
Robert Spencer with his brillant insight into Islamic theology and history understands of course this moral obligation we have also towards the Muslims themselves who are the primary suffering victims of Islam.
So let me end this extensive comment by quoting Robert Spencer:
"Q: Do you hate Muslims?
RS: Of course not. Islam is not a monolith, and never have I said or written anything that characterizes all Muslims as terrorist or given to violence. To call attention to the roots and goals of jihad violence within Islamic texts and teachings, and to show how jihadists use those texts and teachings, says nothing at all about what any given Muslim believes or how he acts. Any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude is welcome to join in our anti-jihadist efforts. Any hate in my books comes from Muslim sources quoted, not from me. Cries of "hatred" and "bigotry" are effectively used by American Muslim advocacy groups to try to stifle the debate about the terrorist threat. But there is no substance to them.
It is not an act of hatred against Muslims to point out the depredations of jihad ideology. It is a peculiar species of displacement and projection to accuse someone who exposes the hatred of one group of hatred himself: I believe in the equality of rights and dignity of all people, and that is why I oppose the global jihad. Those who make the charge use it as a tool to frighten the credulous and politically correct away from the truth."
@ demsci Thanks, I appreciate your opinion a lot!
http://newstime.co.nz/cover-women-heads.html
Video from Cover women heads – Quran 24:31, 33:59
fatwas & ahadith Sahih
"Schröder called for stronger efforts for the education of Islamic religious leaders in German universities - something the federal governments has already embarked on by creating university courses for Imams."
and teach them what?.....she should be calling for an immediate ban on Muslim Immigration.
I think the studies you show here are only partially correct but leave out a key ingredient, which is the religion itself as the promoter of jihad violence, hatred for non believers, and western culture. A scientific study needs to look at all the variables, whether or not they are politically correct, and this, I believe, is where it falls short. Please correct me if I'm missing something.
Other than Muslim immigrants, maybe the main problem in Germany is that the German political class and the government bureaucrats are themselves products of the German universities. Sending Muslim Imams to those universities to be indoctrinated with the same world-view enjoyed by German ruling circles means the Imams will be informed that religion, any religion, is of no importance whatsoever, religion is irrelevant and will fade away wherever it may still persist. And so the Imams should instead bone up on the secular absolutism of G.W.F. Hegel and the sociology science of Max Weber etc. and put their silly religion behind them and get with it. That's gonna work, eh!
So the German government is going to find imams who teach that parts of the Qur'an are not really Allah's words? Imams who also reject significant portions of the canonical hadiths and most parts of the earliest Muslim biographies of Muhammad?
The German government is apparently under the illusion that it is a simple matter to reform Muslim culture. But what if that extremist culture is based on core texts that cannot be rejected without effectively rejecting Islam itself? Such a reform has virtually no chance. Rudi Jasser is an ally, but his position is not coherent (he effectively rejects huge central parts of the core texts, but claims to still be a Muslim, when the majority of Muslim scholars would call him an apostate), and there is little chance that a majority of Muslims will ever adopt Jasser's approach.
The aborted "Islamic Enlightenment" of a millenia ago was not based on anything within the existing religion of Islam, but instead was derived from stolen materials, war booty, from Greek philosophy. The real reason for the Muslims developing their version of philosophical rationalism was for purposes of jihad, for purposes of deceiving European kaffirs as to what Islam was about and what Muslim intentions were. When the jihad opportunity passed, the phoney "Enlightenment" faded through disuse. Islamic philosophy was based on non-Islamic philosophy. It wasn't a natural and real development of the Muhammedan foundations. At any rate, even if a Muhammedan doesn't truly believe in Allah, that Muhammedan can go to hell. In my opinion.
Solyent said "She just monitors the problem... but there is no solution". Oh yes there is a solution and it is staring you in the face. Any who advocates imposition of sharia law is committing treason because in effect they want to overthrow the current constitution of the country. Deport all Muslims and stop all immigration of Muslims into the Western world.
"The real reason for the Muslims developing their version of philosophical rationalism was for purposes of jihad, for purposes of deceiving European kaffirs as to what Islam was about and what Muslim intentions were."
You missed the main point in my comment above (November 27, 2010 5:14) - that philosophical rationalism was never established in Islam. The Muslim rationalists lost the ideological and theological battle to an irrational orthodoxy and fundamentalism eight hundred years ago that closed the Muslim mind and became the Islam we know. It is this intellectual suicide that created the modern Islamist crisis. Had the rationalists won the ideological battle Islam could have evolved along the same lines as Christianity did and have had its own Enlightenment as a consequence when the time was right.
The forces of rationalism in Islam never died. They lived on to this day as Bassam Tibi and other brilliant Muslim thinkers so clearly demonstrate. The reformation of Islam must come from inside but it is not only our moral duty to help those rational forces, it is in the interest of our Western civilization and all mankind as well.
The battle against Islam and Islamist extremism cannot be won on the battlefield as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so clearly demonstrate. The primary battle has always been about the mind. We and the Muslims themselves must attack the problems on the level from which is arises and not just its symptoms - the jihadist terror, racist repression of non-Muslims and a supremacism founded in a irrational misconception of reality and the relation between man and God.
The other side of the problem is that Western civilization and Western man has suffered a catastrophic loss of faith - in himself, in his civilization, and in the faith and rationality that gave it birth. Having lost the will to rule; Western man seems to be losing the will to live as a unique civilization as he feverishly indulges in La Dolce Vita and self hatred with a yawning indifference as to who might inherit the Earth he once ruled.
What the outcome will be of the grand clash of civilizations is impossible to say but for the last 30 years we seems to have done all the wrong things in relation to Islam. Instead of promoting the forces of rationality and reason within Islam we have done the opposite and are now faced with an Islam as fanatical, aggressive and irresistible as it was in its first centuries when it conquered half the world.
The question is not only what went wrong in Islam but also what we did wrong and what we should do differently to win the battle of the mind.
You say I missed your main point. I didn't miss it. I disagreed with it and refuted it by way of giving an alternative much more probable and enlightening. I said that the theme of jihad in Muslim history is always applicable as explication of Islam's affairs, even the production of works of philosophy. On the other hand, you pluck out of historical context a time when Muslim intellectuals were working on "philosophy" and explain it without reference to jihad, and instead offer us a supposed conflict between rationalism and irrationalism -- which I reject out of hand. I'm saying this for the benefit of everyone who may be reading the sequence of comments, in order to spur thought.