The common explanation is that the Egyptian people, rich and poor alike, turned to God after everything else failed: the mess of the government's socialist experiment in the 1960s; the downfall of Gamal Abdel Nasser's Arab nationalism; the military debacle of the 1967 war with Israel; poverty; inept government--the list goes on.
This, at least, is a good start: a generational, decades-old explanation, rather than a deep-cultural, millenia-old explanation.
I thought the article was pretty good as it seemed to resist the easy explanations.
This may show my ignorance but I didn't realize how much they believed in the same Genesis/Adam/etc. creation stuff as Christians. I know "Abrahamic faith" and all that but it still always surprises me to see how many similarities.
3: Yeah, Christianity and Islam are pretty much Judaism 2.0 and 3.0 in that regard.
But no Christians like to admit it, because who wants to be the middle stage in the evolution of monotheism?
Sullen middle child Christianity is prone to heightening the differences between it and its family and frequent acting out.
Sometimes you'd prefer good patches for versions 1.0 and 2.0 rather than a new version with processor-hungry features you don't want and need.
Islam claims internally that it is the original religion. It's not a new revelation that God gave Muhammed. God's been saying the same damn thing over and over and Judaism and Christianity keep corrupting God's message.
This is sometimes annoying around new overzealous 'reverts' who get all high and mighty when you say something about the spread of Islam in the 7th century. "Adam and Eve were Muslims", yes, that's nice, hush now.
Yes, everyone is born Muslim, but sometimes they fuck you up, your mom and dad.
Anyway, I found that Science article hideous, for the obvious reasons.
This Sunday's NYT magazine article was similarly annoying. "Hmm, I know a bit about political history in Europe, but politics-n-Islam is the hot topic. Hey, tack on a paragraph about Khaled Abou el-Fadl and Tariq Ramadan, and lo, I'm in bidness."
for the obvious reasons
I did not realize that he who sleeps with muslims becomes one, himself.
"Adam and Eve were Muslims"
So it really was muslims who fucked it up for everybody. Nice going there, assholes.
no, the obvious reasons I had in mind were from the previous thread: the article purports to tell us something about the conflict between Islam per se and science, but ends up saying things about the conflict between fundamentalism generally and science without saying (as I recall) that the problem is not Islam per se (or its content, you might say) but that for various interesting reasons theology has wider sway in the intellectual and political life in the middle east than it does in the US, e.g.
I strenuously object to the notion that reading the text should - or even can - inform our discussions of said text.
Strange that the author should be so mystified about why Third World countries are obsessed with practical research.
15: ha! classic non-denial that you've been having secks with Ogged.
I can't help but read the intro to the article in that Action Movie Announcer guy voice.
This is the ultimate story about science and religion.
We'll sell you the whole seat, but you'll only need the edge.
How a man resolves his
Christianity Islam and his science is valid only for him, and for him, only for a time.
This summer... TIME'S UP.
In 25, resolves s/b reconciles. Bah.
The trailer would have to include a shot of the sinister Doctor El-Naggar facing off against Bill Nye and saying: "Are we really so different, you and I?"