Islamic fundamentalism

md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu wrote:
> 

> first, there are differences between egypt and iran. egypt is a
> seeminlgy secular country whereas Iran is not. both gave anti-imperialist
> struggles but both ended in different regimes and capitalist
> transformations. to ignore the differences between the two
> is to ignore the ideological differences between two revolutions. soviet
> coommunism was always a threath and a night-mare to mollas. in addition,
> iran always aimed to transport its regime to elsewhere in the middle east,
> like egypt and turkey.

I have only lived for a short time in an Islamic country of the middle
east and only in one country. This country has many of the
characteristics that various list members have referred to. It contains
a diversity of viewpoints and an increasingly powerful Islamic
fundamentalist movement. I see the increasing fundamentalism as the
result of the access that the fundamentalists have to greater wealth.
More wealth gives them more power to achieve recognition in the eyes of
outsiders. I see the greater wealth, in turn, as being the result of the
increasing respect for the sovereignty of states over physical property
(and correspondingly the decreasing tolerance for outright agressive
taking -- i.e., robbery) by the people of one nation from those of
another nation), following World War II. (In simple terms, Western
countries respected the rights of the Arab countries to sieze all rights
to oil that exist on or under the land assigned to them, according to
post WWII boundaries.) This respect enabled several of the middle east
countries to become rentier societies, where large portions of the
populations and their religion are supported by revenue from oil.

This respect for property rights was envisioned by Western leaders as
part of a new world capitalist order but I don't see it as part of some
capitalist conspiracy or as in any way inevitable. Instead, I think that
the respect was due to a desire for world peace. Whatever its source, it
has generated great wealth for many of the poeple in these countries and
has surely helped spur the growth of Islam.

A remarkable thing about Muslims who have benefitted from these
international legal rights is that many if not most of the ones I know
seem to believe that their wealth was bestowed on them by God. Such a
view is much more difficult to maintain in those Islamic countries where
no significant oil has been found yet where the economies have adapted
sufficiently to the world trading system to achieve moderate
development. An example is Egypt.

My reason for citing these observations is their apparent irrelevance to
the Marxian interpretation of the growth of Islam. One might argue that
the growth was a byproduct of capitalism or that it was an unexpected
consequence. But it would be difficult to argue that it is a driving
force of any significance. It seems to me that capitalism is areligious
and apolitical. It enables many people to earn wealth and, as a result,
to promote whatever ideas they wish to promote. This includes Marxism
and world systems theory, by the way. But the only systematic influence
that I can conceive of capitalism having on world institutions is that
of promoting private property rights (including the right of self
determination and world peace), the right to do business, and stable
money.
-- 
Pat Gunning
Web pages on Subjectivism, Democracy, Taiwan, Ludwig von Mises, and
Austrian Economics
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/barclay/212/welcome.htm
http://www2.cybercities.com/g/gunning/welcome.htm